Summary of Issue: Courses Of Study

Decision 29563A Full Text of Decision 29563A

Clmt did not disclose on his report cards that he was enrolled as a part-time student because he believed that the question referred only to full-time students. Umpire did not accept clmt’s argument as the question obviously requires to divulge any course of study in which one is engaged during the relevant period.

Decision A-0237.97 Full Text of Decision A-0237.97

Case identical to A-0239.97. See indexed summary.

Decision A-0236.97 Full Text of Decision A-0236.97

Case identical to A-0239.97. See indexed summary.

Decision A-0239.97 Full Text of Decision A-0239.97

Claimant admitted he had not declared being a full-time student on many of his benefit claims, because he knew that he would be not be entitled to the benefits he needed to provide for his family and to pay for very expensive medication. Penalties were assessed on the claimant for not having declared that he was a full-time student during these years. After verifying certain calculations, the Commission reduced the penalty in accordance with subsection 33(4) of the Act, because certain false statements had been made more than 36 months before the assessment of the penalty. FCA upheld the decision.

Decision A-0238.97 Full Text of Decision A-0238.97

Penalty assessed for 16 false or misleading statements that claimant made in not declaring he had been at university between 27-09-93 and 30-04-94. Claimant stated before BOR that he had not taken any courses between September 1993 and March 1994. BOR accordingly reduced the number of false statements to 8 from 16, thereby reducing the amount of the penalty. Penalty upheld by Umpire. FCA overturned the ruling on the assessment of the penalty. ICourt concluded that, contrary to what the Umpire and BOR believed, there was no inconsistency between the documentary evidence from the university showing that the claimant had been registered as a full-time student for the 1994 winter semester, and the claimant's assertion that he had taken no courses.

Decision A-0261.97 Full Text of Decision A-0261.97

Claimant admitted to not having disclosed the fact that he was taking a taxi driver’s course on a full-time basis, because he had a wife and child and needed his unemployment benefits. A penalty was imposed on him for not declaring his non-availability. FCA found that the claimant’s praiseworthy efforts to take retraining and to support his family did not exempt us from the obligation to apply the UI Act.

Decision A-0177.94 Full Text of Decision A-0177.94

The Board limits itself to a finding that since it has found claimant to be available she did not make false or misleading statements. This ignores her negative answers to the question of whether she attended a course during the period in the reporting cards. Umpire's decision upheld by the FCA.

Decision 24103 Full Text of Decision 24103

Refer to: A-0177.94

Decision 23821 Full Text of Decision 23821

Claimant answered "no" because he felt that the course was not full-time and that he was still available for work. However, the question does not refer to full-time. It merely asks "Did you attend a school or training course during the period of this report?" and then provides space for information.

Decision 21921 Full Text of Decision 21921

Claimant said that she answered 'no' because she was told by the CEIC that it was not necessary to report a course of less than 20 hours a week. The majority Board set out this explanation without any express disapprobation. The issue is whether the explanation was credible.

Decision 17848 Full Text of Decision 17848

The Board has accepted claimant's statement that he misunderstood the question: he thought it included only Manpower approved schools. The Board upheld the penalty because the claimant had not verified with CEIC. The question is whether at the time he made the statements he knew them to be false.

Decision 15578 Full Text of Decision 15578

Penalty of $294 since, even after leaving the course she was taking under CEIC, she continued to say she was following the course when she completed her weekly statements.

Decision 14382 Full Text of Decision 14382

Believed questions concern referred courses. Hard to believe that a person who is able to master a course in real estate and become a highly successful agent could not understand simple questions. Every one presumed to know the law.

Decision 12814 Full Text of Decision 12814

Claimant wrote no to question 3 on 6 consecutive reporting cards. Her explanation that she failed to report course because told by a friend it would otherwise cause of lot of paperwork not good enough.

Decision 12582 Full Text of Decision 12582

He believed he did not have to report part-time studies. The question on report card is quite clear [and not limited to full-time courses]. As a former enquiry clerk for CEIC, he cannot allege misunderstanding. [penalty of $1795 relating to 11 report cards]

Decision 11006 Full Text of Decision 11006

I am inclined to think that the no answer was false and claimant should have understood it to be false since the question is phrased so broadly. Nevertheless, the grounds stated in the notice referred to availability, not to attending a course.