Decision 53688
Full Text of Decision 53688
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
clear and simple language |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant convinced that she did not have to report earnings from her part-time job and thought that the questions on the cards were addressing only full-time work. Argument dismissed by Umpire. It is difficult to fathom that one could believe that she could receive full employment insurance benefits and still receive such earnings from work, part-time or otherwise. The purpose of these questions is too obvious for one to arrive at such an understanding.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Decision A-0173.99
Full Text of Decision A-0173.99
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
clear and simple language |
|
|
Summary:
Held by the FCA that knowledge may be inferred from the fact that the claimant has given wrong or misleading answers to simple questions, at least in the absence of an explanation (reference to FCA decision in Gates (A-0600.94). No defence for the claimant to allege that he mistakenly thought that his involvement with the business was minor in nature: this is not the questions asked on the reporting cards. That assessment is for the Commission to make based on the information provided by the claimant.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Decision A-0434.98
Full Text of Decision A-0434.98
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
clear and simple language |
|
|
Summary:
The FCA reaffirmed the principle that "when a claimant states on a reporting card that he or she has not worked or been paid during the reporting period, and the statements are false, it is reasonable to infer, in the absence of any satisfactory explanation, that the claimant knew that the statements were false". The Court found no such explanation in the case and dismissed the claimant's application for judicial review.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
voluntary disclosure policy |
|
|
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Decision 43762
Full Text of Decision 43762
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
clear and simple language |
|
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0173.99
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Decision A-0743.97
Full Text of Decision A-0743.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
clear and simple language |
|
|
Summary:
Principle set out in Gates (A-0600.94) regarding the burden of proof when dealing with false statements reaffirmed by FCA. The false statements were so obvious and the circumstances, especially "the fact that the claimant has been on claim several times before" and that the "cards are straight forward", were such that the BOR was right in saying that it was for the claimant then to offer an explanation that would rebut the inference that the false statements were knowingly made.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
| penalties |
proof |
|
|
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Decision 41304
Full Text of Decision 41304
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
clear and simple language |
|
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0434.98
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
voluntary disclosure policy |
|
|
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Decision A-0419.97
Full Text of Decision A-0419.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
clear and simple language |
|
|
Summary:
In responding that he did not work, claimant said he did not understand unpaid work to be work within the meaning of the questions on the application and the report cards. Umpire referred to several cases where other persons with similar understandings or misunderstandings did not knowingly make false statements. The standard is not what a reasonable claimant would know. Wrong test applied by the BOR when they said that the claimant "had an obligation to understand the application and the reporting cards". The test to be applied is a subjective one (see Gates A-0600.94). The FCA summarily dismissed the Commission's appeal.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Decision A-0195.97
Full Text of Decision A-0195.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
clear and simple language |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant set up a private legal practice and was found not unemployed. Penalty also imposed for 9 false or misleading statements. Referring to previous jurisprudence, Umpire held that the questions on the cards were quite simple. The Umpire recognizes that the question "were you working" might be a problem to people with language difficulties, or a minimal education, but one cannot attribute other than a willful action on the part of someone who has been engaged in the business world for some ten years. Claimant's appeal summarily dismissed by the FCA.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
minor in extent |
|
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
statement of facts required |
|
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
| board of referees |
statement of facts |
not to be read strictly |
|
Decision 38743
Full Text of Decision 38743
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
clear and simple language |
|
|
Summary:
See FCA A-0743.97
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
| penalties |
proof |
|
|
Decision A-0904.96
Full Text of Decision A-0904.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
clear and simple language |
|
|
Summary:
Wife paid for work performed by the claimant. No earnings declared. Claimant admitted before the BOR that he knew the way he was completing his cards was incorrect and illegal. Nevertheless, the BOR found that the claimant had not knowingly made 14 false statements. Umpire overturned the BOR's decision, stating that it was made with total disregard for the facts. FCA ruled that the Umpire was justified in substituting her assessment of the evidence for that of the BOR, since the Board had dismissed a statement by the claimant without explanation.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of facts |
|
| earnings |
income |
between spouses |
|
Decision A-0775.96
Full Text of Decision A-0775.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
clear and simple language |
|
|
Summary:
Given the weight of all the evidence, the claimant had to know that in stating that he was not working, he was committing a reprehensible act, i.e., was stating something that was not true. The BOR had made sure that the claimant was able to understand very clearly the questions mentioned on the cards, and the Umpire was justified in not intervening. Application for judicial review dismissed by the FCA.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
| proof |
reimbursing of an overpayment |
|
|
| penalties |
proof |
|
|
Decision 35351
Full Text of Decision 35351
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
clear and simple language |
|
|
Summary:
Precedents have established that when the claimant has difficulty answering very simple questions, the onus is then on the claimant to explain the reason for the incorrect answers. The claimant acknowledged that he knew that what he was doing was unlawful. The Board disregarded the facts.
Decision 25451
Full Text of Decision 25451
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
clear and simple language |
|
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0600.94
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
business |
|
|
| penalties |
work without remuneration |
|
|
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
| penalties |
rationale |
|
|
| penalties |
proof |
|
|
| penalties |
proof |
need for an explanation |
weight |
Decision A-0600.94
Full Text of Decision A-0600.94
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
clear and simple language |
|
|
Summary:
CUB 22326 quoted to the effect that the onus shifts to claimant to explain incorrect answers to simple questions on the report cards. As a practical manner this is so, but the explanation offered may be readily acceptable. It depends on the evidence andthe circumstances.
The fact-finder must decide on the balance of probabilities that the claimant subjectively knew that the report was false in order to penalize him or her. It is possible, though unlikely, for a claimant to be truly ignorant of some fact, even a simple one, when nearly everyone would know it.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
| penalties |
business |
|
|
| penalties |
work without remuneration |
|
|
| penalties |
rationale |
|
|
| penalties |
proof |
|
|
| penalties |
proof |
need for an explanation |
weight |
Decision 27440
Full Text of Decision 27440
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
clear and simple language |
|
|
Summary:
Numerous cases have established that one who responds "No" to the simple question whether he or she has worked, when in fact he or she has worked, whether paid or not, has made a false or misleading statement that he or she knows to be untrue. Saying he or she did not intend to defraud is not enough.
Decision 22763
Full Text of Decision 22763
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
clear and simple language |
|
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0693.93
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Decision A-0693.93
Full Text of Decision A-0693.93
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
clear and simple language |
|
|
Summary:
The Board expressly held that claimant had knowingly misled the Commission in answering "No" on his bi-weekly benefit claims to clear questions as to whether he had been employed and had income from employment . The evidence supported the finding.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Decision 22326
Full Text of Decision 22326
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
clear and simple language |
|
|
Summary:
While the onus is initially on the Commission to prove that a claimant knowingly made a false statement, once it appears from the evidence that claimant has wrongly answered very simple questions on the report cards the burden shifts to the claimant to explain why those incorrect answers were given.
Decision 20349
Full Text of Decision 20349
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
clear and simple language |
|
|
Summary:
Although the burden of proving that a statement was made "knowingly" is on the Commission, once a false answer to a fairly straightforward question such as "Did you work" is shown, the burden of providing some credible explanation rests on the claimant.
Decision 20043
Full Text of Decision 20043
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
clear and simple language |
|
|
Summary:
Earnings of $586 for 1 week not reported. I think the questions on the report card are quite simple and quite clear and the claimant, no matter what he now says, must be taken as a reasonable person to have understood that he had to report these earnings at some time.
Decision 12361A
Full Text of Decision 12361A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
clear and simple language |
|
|
Summary:
Normally, the mere fact of having received unreported wages or answered no to the question of whether claimant worked is sufficient, otherwise any claimant could excuse a false report by merely saying he did not do so knowingly. If explanation reasonable and credible, no penalty.
Decision 14035
Full Text of Decision 14035
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
clear and simple language |
|
|
Summary:
Knowingly and deliberately stated he had not worked these 2 weeks (no question here as to amount of earnings). Card is very clear and question is written in language that everyone can understand.
Decision 13298
Full Text of Decision 13298
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
clear and simple language |
|
|
Summary:
The reporting cards are simple enough to complete. If an answer to a question "Did you work - Yes or no?" turns out to be false, it is difficult for anyone to be persuaded that the false answer was not knowingly given.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
|
|
| penalties |
rationale |
|
|
| penalties |
proof |
need for an explanation |
|
Decision 13147
Full Text of Decision 13147
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
clear and simple language |
|
|
Summary:
As the statements were in reply to a simple question of "Did you work, yes or no?", a wrong answer is difficult to justify on grounds of ignorance, inadvertance, distraction or otherwise.
Decision 12252
Full Text of Decision 12252
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
clear and simple language |
|
|
Summary:
Because questions posed on reporting cards are so simple, it is rightly held that claimants of very minimal education are not to be excused from their incorrect answers. It is different when one could not even read the alphabet in which those simple questions are posed. [p. 10]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
working conditions |
salary |
|
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
length |
|
Decision 10641
Full Text of Decision 10641
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
clear and simple language |
|
|
Summary:
Taxi driver who did not report earnings because told he could earn up to 25% of his benefits. Claimant evinces intelligence and high degree of linguistic skill. Questions simple and straightforward. Penalty assessed far from maximum. [$346 for 9 false statements]
