Decision A0233.08
Full Text of Decision A0233.08
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Summary:
In this case, the Commission imposed several penalties to the claimant and gave him a notice of violation for having made false statements by not declaring his business income. The issue was whether the false statements were made knowingly. The FCA indicated that once it is established that the claimant has knowingly made false statements, penalties are applicable and concluded that the claimant did not demonstrate that the Umpire erred in its decision.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
violation |
|
|
Decision A0339.08
Full Text of Decision A0339.08
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant was director, president and majority shareholder of a business and he operated from his home. He was self-employed, he did not accept any other employment, made no effort to search for employment and spent most of his time on his business. He did not report his earnings from the business because they were used to repay his debt and he did not have wages to report. The Commission concluded that the claimant was not unemployed or available for work and imposed a retroactive disentitlement, a penalty for making false or misleading statements and a notice of violation. The Umpire confirmed that the BOR was justified in fact and in law in concluding that EI must not serve as supplementary income for the claimant as an entrepreneur, and that the business earnings, even though they were not distributed to shareholders, still constituted earnings under the Act. The FCA allowed the judicial review application by the Commission and restored the penalty and the violation
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
business |
|
|
Decision A0067.07
Full Text of Decision A0067.07
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Summary:
As fo the penalties, the evidence supports the conclusion of the BOR and the Umpire had reason to maintain them. Despite the fact that the Boards' reasons do not explain why the false statements where knowingly made, the evidence demonstrates without question that the claimant knew he did not have a right to benefits when he made the statements.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
principal means of livelihood |
|
|
Decision A0526.05
Full Text of Decision A0526.05
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant acknowledged the misrepresentations and the resulting overpayment but argued against the penalty saying that the misrepresentations were not made intentionally and resulted from a human error and confusion caused by many things including the employer's pay system. In rejecting the claimant's application, the Court said that he drew 17 weeks of benefits while working at continuous full-time employment and should have reported his work even if he was in doubt as to the exact amount of his earnings. The Court also said that a waiver of a penalty on a prior claim by the Commission must have made the claimant aware of his obligation to be truthful in his reports.
Decision A-0194.02
Full Text of Decision A-0194.02
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Summary:
The Court found that the Claimant was not justified in failing to disclose earnings because he found that the Commission was slow in making a payment that was owed to him.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
request for review |
new facts to BOR, Umpire or Commission |
Decision A-0438.02
Full Text of Decision A-0438.02
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Summary:
The Court concluded that in order to be subject to a penalty under section 38(1)(a) of the Act, it is not enough for the representation to be false or misleading, it must be made by the applicant with knowledge that it is false or misleading.
Decision 54394
Full Text of Decision 54394
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Summary:
Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0438.02
Decision 53688
Full Text of Decision 53688
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
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 |
clear and simple language |
|
|
Decision A-0211.01
Full Text of Decision A-0211.01
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant used the Teledec method of reporting and failed to disclose all of his earnings. A penalty was imposed but the questions answered by claimant via the Teledic system were never in evidence before the BOR or the Umpire. The BOR was simply of the view that the same "five question pattern" was asked on the Teledec system as appears on a reporting card and the Umpire accepted it. The FCA found that the BOR based its decision on a material finding of fact without the necessary evidential underpinning and that the onus of proving the knowing misrepresentation had not been met.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
denial of natural justice |
|
| board of referees |
natural justice |
free of bias |
|
| penalties |
proof |
documents missing |
|
Decision 51197
Full Text of Decision 51197
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Summary:
Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0194.02
Decision A-0545.99
Full Text of Decision A-0545.99
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant and 4 others (Giuseppe Insalaco, A-0546.99/CUB 45241, Anne Insalaco, A-0547.99/CUB 45206, Rina Genova, A-0548.99/CUB 45213 and Silvana Insalaco, A-0550.99/CUB 45209) are co-owners of a business and also family related. Failed to disclose the relationship when filing his application. Penalty imposed and maintained by BOR but rescinded by the Umpire. The Umpire held that a negative answer to the specific questions on the application form did not constitute a false statement. The FCA refused to interfere.
Decision 50336
Full Text of Decision 50336
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant agreed to have his employer bank his hours. Alleges that he did not want to defraud the Commission, but had to participate in the system in order to keep his job. The possibility that a person believes in good faith that he or she is not committing fraud by making false statements under the pretext of helping his or her employer constitutes wilful blindness.
Decision 50197
Full Text of Decision 50197
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant and others hired on the employer's condition that they not declare earnings received. Understood that if one of them told the truth, their friends and colleagues would lose their jobs. Counsel maintains that the objective was not to commit fraud, but to ensure that the company could get started and to avoid distress for colleagues. Argument dismissed by the Umpire. Claimant accepted a risk and made an individual choice. Claimants knew, singly and collectively, that the information was false.
Decision 50753
Full Text of Decision 50753
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0211.01
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
denial of natural justice |
|
| board of referees |
natural justice |
free of bias |
|
Decision A-0173.99
Full Text of Decision A-0173.99
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
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 |
clear and simple language |
|
|
Decision A-0434.98
Full Text of Decision A-0434.98
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
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 |
clear and simple language |
|
|
Decision 47951
Full Text of Decision 47951
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Summary:
The BOR cancelled the penalty, as it was of the opinion that the claimant, because of his severe problems with alcoholism and drug addiction, was not aware he had made false statements. According to the Umpire, the BOR erred in law. The events took place after the claimant had received drug and alcohol treatment, and the claimant was fully aware of what he was doing. He even stated that he had done it because he needed the money to live.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
health reasons |
|
|
Decision 45212
Full Text of Decision 45212
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0545.99
Decision 43762
Full Text of Decision 43762
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0173.99
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
clear and simple language |
|
|
Decision A-0171.98
Full Text of Decision A-0171.98
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Summary:
FCA found that a penalty could be imposed under section 33(1) of the Act only if the claimant had "knowingly" made a false or misleading statement. This meant that a penalty could not be imposed on a claimant who had made a false statement unless it was deemed that the claimant had acted in bad faith, i.e. dishonestly, in that case.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
misrepresentation |
|
|
| penalties |
applicability |
|
|
| penalties |
charter |
|
|
Decision 42274
Full Text of Decision 42274
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant knew that the record of employment was incorrect. The fact that he did not intend to defraud the Commission has no bearing on the imposition of a penalty; what is relevant is that the claimant knowingly and wilfully made a false statement.
Decision A-0743.97
Full Text of Decision A-0743.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
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 |
clear and simple language |
|
|
Decision 42158
Full Text of Decision 42158
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Summary:
Penalty imposed for having made 13 false or misleading statements. The claimant admitted having devoted all his time to his business and not making job searches, whereas on his cards, he said that he was not working and was available. Umpire found that the BOR had clearly erred in law in deciding that he had not knowingly made false or misleading statements.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
weeks of unemployment |
|
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
| self-employment assistance |
applicability |
|
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
discretionary power |
|
Decision A-0086.98
Full Text of Decision A-0086.98
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Summary:
Penalty imposed for having made 25 false statements. Umpire found that the BOR had misinterpreted the facts in reversing the Commission's decision. The claimant's allegation of "several years of drug abuse" to justify his situation was neither reasonable nor credible. He had been sufficiently lucid to report to work for 49 consecutive weeks as well as to sign and submit his statements under the guise of being unemployed, for the obvious purpose of collecting benefits to which he was not entitled. FCA upheld the Umpire's decision.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
misrepresentation |
|
|
| penalties |
proof |
|
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of facts |
|
Decision 41506
Full Text of Decision 41506
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant was president and minority shareholder of a seasonal business. He believed in good faith that since he was not receiving any earnings, there had been an interruption of earnings. He repeated this error for four years. Penalties imposed for having made four representations that the claimant knew were false or misleading. Umpire cancelled the penalties because, in his view, on the issue of whether the claimant was ignorant of the law, his mental condition was clearly inadequate to knowingly make a false statement.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
conditions required |
|
|
| interruption of earnings |
conditions required |
7 days without work |
|
| penalties |
work without remuneration |
|
|
Decision A-0418.97
Full Text of Decision A-0418.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Summary:
Not sufficient for a BOR to simply state a claimant's credibility is "in question". Held by the FCA that the fact that the BOR erred in finding the claimant was not credible does not lead to the opposite conclusion. It does not mean also that the Commission failed to meet its burden of establishing that the claimant knowingly made false or misleading statements. The Commission cannot be faulted for the errors of the BOR.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
assess credibility |
duty |
| week of unemployment |
full working week |
|
|
| week of unemployment |
minor in extent |
|
|
| board of referees |
hearings |
attendance of third party |
|
| penalties |
proof |
|
|
Decision 41304
Full Text of Decision 41304
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
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 |
clear and simple language |
|
|
Decision A-0419.97
Full Text of Decision A-0419.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
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 |
clear and simple language |
|
|
Decision A-0195.97
Full Text of Decision A-0195.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
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 |
|
| board of referees |
statement of facts |
not to be read strictly |
|
| penalties |
clear and simple language |
|
|
Decision A-0168.97
Full Text of Decision A-0168.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Summary:
Not drawing any income from his business, claimant under the belief that he did not have to declare on his report cards that he was working. Without any specific findings of facts, the BOR dismissed the claimant's appeal and the Umpire refused to interfere. Decisions such as that of the BOR are not to be read "microscopically" ruled the FCA. While it is true that the BOR did not explicitly condemn the applicant's evidence as not worthy of belief, its refusal to accept his explanations is more than apparent from the unanimous finding of the BOR.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
work without remuneration |
|
|
Decision A-0667.96
Full Text of Decision A-0667.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant found unemployed and decision maintained at all levels of appeal. However, the FCA ruled that the BOR and the Umpire had erred in law when they upheld the penalty. The mere fact that a legally false statement is made does not necessarily mean that it was made knowing that it was false. Neither does the repetition of a false statement make it knowingly false; there must be subjective knowledge of falsity as required by Gates (A-0600.94). Case returned to Umpire for reconsideration on that issue.
Decision 40243
Full Text of Decision 40243
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Summary:
BOR in its decision to find falsity used the words "knowingly or should have known". Umpire found those words neutralized the word "knowingly" and ruled that BOR erred in adopting them as they do not meet the test according to the legislative provisions to determine falsity.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
meaning of a term |
|
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
official wordings differ |
|
Decision A-0237.97
Full Text of Decision A-0237.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Summary:
Case identical to A-0239.97. See indexed summary.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
charter |
|
|
| penalties |
courses of study |
|
|
| penalties |
misrepresentation |
|
|
Decision A-0239.97
Full Text of Decision A-0239.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Summary:
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.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
charter |
|
|
| penalties |
misrepresentation |
|
|
| penalties |
courses of study |
|
|
Decision A-0236.97
Full Text of Decision A-0236.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Summary:
Case identical to A-0239.97. See indexed summary.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
charter |
|
|
| penalties |
courses of study |
|
|
| penalties |
misrepresentation |
|
|
Decision 40361
Full Text of Decision 40361
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant was self-employed as a real estate agent while receiving benefits. Failing to declare on his cards that he was working on contract as a real estate agent and the fact that he repeated the same false answers showed that he acted knowingly and illegally.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
business |
|
|
Decision 40075
Full Text of Decision 40075
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Summary:
Penalty imposed for making 20 false or misleading statements. BOR reversed this decision. According to the evidence, the claimant knew he had to declare his income from his business, but did not do so because he and his family needed money. Umpire found that the UI Program was not designed finance individuals in financial difficulties. BOR thus erred in refusing to accept the documentary evidence on the record, and thereby rendered a decision made in perverse or capricious manner without regard for the material before it.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
applicability |
|
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
weight of statements |
|
| penalties |
weeks of unemployment |
|
|
Decision A-0136.97
Full Text of Decision A-0136.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Summary:
Case identical to that of Michel Castonguay. See summary indexed under
A-0137. 97.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
earnings |
banking hours |
|
| penalties |
proof |
|
|
| earnings |
proof |
|
|
| proof |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Decision A-0137.97
Full Text of Decision A-0137.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant participated in an hour banking scheme. When work slowed down, the claimant’s banked hours were paid to him as a salary. Penalties were imposed upon the claimant for failing to declare the earnings received in this manner. FCA found that the Umpire had failed to understand the issue before himself and the BOR in ruling that the Commission had not succeeded in proving that the claimant had worked during the weeks at issue. The Commission did not criticize the claimant for having worked during the weeks in question, but for failing to declare any earnings although he had received a salary. Such was the nature of the false statements attributed to the claimant. The claimant admitted to having received remuneration during the weeks at issue, though he had originally stated that he had earned nothing. The falseness of the statements had not only been admitted, but had resulted from a scheme that the claimant also acknowledged. FCA ruled that the Umpire should have recognized this and upheld the penalty.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
proof |
|
|
| proof |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
| penalties |
proof |
|
|
| penalties |
earnings |
banking hours |
|
Decision 39647
Full Text of Decision 39647
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Summary:
The evidence shows that the claimant had been advised that he could have income equivalent to 25% of the benefits he received without such income having any impact on his right to receive those benefits, and that he was justified in believing that his income would not exceed that limit. Umpire found that the claimant was justified in declaring that he was not working at the time he filled out his cards, and that he had not “knowingly” made false or misleading statements. Umpire held that the Board of Referees erred in fact and in law in not regarding the claimant’s explanations as reasonable and in not making any reference to those explanations in its decision.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
weight of statements |
|
Decision 39463
Full Text of Decision 39463
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Summary:
If one does not know a statement is false when she makes it she cannot be said to have been made knowingly. The knowledge must have existed at the time of making the statement.
Decision 34603A
Full Text of Decision 34603A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Summary:
Penalty imposed for knowingly making 3 false or misleading statements for not disclosing his absence from Canada. Umpire ruled that in order for the claimant to have knowingly made false or misleading statements he would have to have thought that he was not entitled to benefits but made the claim regardless. However in this case, the claimant could not knowingly have made false or misleading statements when he was of the opinion that he was entitled to benefits.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
out of canada |
|
| penalties |
outside of canada |
|
|
Decision 39357
Full Text of Decision 39357
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Summary:
When a claimant admits to having made a false statement because he needed money, he thereby admits that he knowingly lied.
Decision 39277
Full Text of Decision 39277
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Summary:
It is by an examination of the facts and by the credibility of witnesses that one may determine whether a false or misleading statement has been made knowingly and deliberately.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| proof |
weight of statements |
|
|
| week of unemployment |
rationale |
|
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
weight of statements |
|
| proof |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Decision 38889
Full Text of Decision 38889
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Summary:
Laudable as the efforts of the claimant to maintain employment might be, they provide no basis whatsoever for relief from the imposition of a penalty where an individual knowingly makes false or misleading statements to obtain UI benefits for use as "bridge financing" in his efforts to extricate himself and his family from financial difficulty. This was not, as the claimant indicates, a use of the "social safety net in an emergency situation" but rather a flagrant abuse of the UI program.
Decision A-0261.97
Full Text of Decision A-0261.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Summary:
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.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
taxi drivers |
|
|
| penalties |
availability for work |
|
|
| penalties |
courses of study |
|
|
| availability for work |
courses |
purpose of the legislation |
|
Decision A-0926.96
Full Text of Decision A-0926.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant reported that he had not worked on his own account and that he had no connection to the employer, whereas he owned 25% of the employer’s shares. Umpire upheld the Board of Referees’ decision which found that the claimant was not credible and had made a false statement. FCA found that the claimant failed to show that the BOR and the Umpire came to an unreasonable decision in ratifying the 300% penalty imposed. It added that the BOR and Umpire are authorized to intervene only if it is shown that the Commission exercised its discretionary power in a non-judicial manner. This was not shown.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
Decision 38743
Full Text of Decision 38743
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
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 |
clear and simple language |
|
|
| penalties |
proof |
|
|
Decision A-0775.96
Full Text of Decision A-0775.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
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: |
| proof |
reimbursing of an overpayment |
|
|
| penalties |
proof |
|
|
| penalties |
clear and simple language |
|
|
Decision 36903
Full Text of Decision 36903
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Summary:
Since this was a second offence for the same deception, language difficulties are not a reasonable explanation when the claimant knew it was wrong to apply for and obtain benefits while working.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
language difficulties |
|
|
Decision A-0182.96
Full Text of Decision A-0182.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant, who was the sole proprietor of the woodlands, did not declare the gains he realized from the sale of the wood that he himself delivered to the buyer. The cheque was made out to his son, and he stated that he had not received any profit from the sale of the wood. The BOR found that this arrangement in no way altered the nature of the situation, and was simply a roundabout way of not declaring income. A straight case of assessment of fact, and both the Umpire and the FCA refused to intervene.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
farming |
self-employed |
|
| earnings |
farming |
definition |
|
Decision A-0715.95
Full Text of Decision A-0715.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant admitted to having knowingly made false statements, but argued in his defence that he did not want to reveal the «banking» systgem to which his employer had forced him to belong; otherwise, he would have lost his chances for re-employment with that employer. This argument was rejected by the Court. The conditions in which the statements were made might have value as extenuating circumstances for the purposes of assessing the penalty, but this is a matter in which the Commission or the BOR is authorized to rule.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
Decision A-0784.95
Full Text of Decision A-0784.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Summary:
FCA found that Umpire had applied a more stringent test (intent to deceive) than the one defined previously by the FCA. Not clear also that the BOR had itself applied the right test. Matter referred back to a BOR for a redetermination of the penalty in accordance with the ruling of the FCA in Gates.
Decision 28701
Full Text of Decision 28701
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0547.95
Decision A-0547.95
Full Text of Decision A-0547.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Summary:
Three false statements over an 18-week period. The appeal judge concluded that that period had to be considered as a whole, and that the Board's reasoning fell somewhat short. On the basis of the McDonald case (A-897-90), ruled that state of mind had not been demonstrated. CEIC appeal summarily rejected by FCA.
Decision A-0255.95
Full Text of Decision A-0255.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Summary:
This, whether consciously or not, was a question of fact; the arbitrator could take action only on the assumption that the Board's response, in his view, was abusive, was arbitrary, or failed to take into consideration facts brought to their attention.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Decision 27279
Full Text of Decision 27279
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0255.95
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Decision 25953
Full Text of Decision 25953
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0694.94
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
independent decision-making |
|
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
remove |
|
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
Decision A-0694.94
Full Text of Decision A-0694.94
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Summary:
Whether or not a person has knowingly made one or more false or misleading statements does not require any special expertise on the part of the decision-maker. In this regard, the BOR is equally qualified to render such factual determinations.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
independent decision-making |
|
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
remove |
|
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
Decision A0021.95
Full Text of Decision A0021.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Summary:
We interpret the Board's decision as having accepted the explanation provided by the claimant to the effect that he honestly did not believe that he continued to be unemployed because he did not receive any earnings. That being the case, the claimant did not knowingly make false statements.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
decision maintained |
|
Decision 26229
Full Text of Decision 26229
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0021.95
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
decision maintained |
|
Decision 29001
Full Text of Decision 29001
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Summary:
The two concepts (credibility and knowledge) are not synonymous. They require different considerations. Failure to provide a "credible explanation" does not necessarily establish the kind of guilty mind that must be present to find that a statement was made with knowledge that it was false.
The Board must indicate with some precision the basis upon which it has concluded that the claimant knew that he was making false statements. Merely stating, without more, that claimant has "knowingly" done so is not sufficient. The basis for so concluding should be stated at least briefly.
Decision A-0600.94
Full Text of Decision A-0600.94
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Summary:
The Umpire went beyond where he should have gone in describing the mental element required for a finding of knowledge, as set out in McDONALD. It would be erroneous to conclude that an additional element is required in addition to knowledge, that is, anintention to deceive.
Ss. 33(1) allows for the imposition of a financial penalty, which implies that some improper (though not criminal) conduct has taken place, that is, knowingly to misrepresent facts.
The words "knew to be false" require a subjective test in determining whether the requisite knowledge is present. This was recognized in ZYSMAN where it is indicated that "a subjective knowledge of the falsehood on the part of the speaker was crucial".
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
business |
|
|
| penalties |
work without remuneration |
|
|
| penalties |
clear and simple language |
|
|
| penalties |
rationale |
|
|
| penalties |
proof |
|
|
| penalties |
proof |
need for an explanation |
weight |
Decision 25451
Full Text of Decision 25451
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
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 |
clear and simple language |
|
|
| penalties |
rationale |
|
|
| penalties |
proof |
|
|
| penalties |
proof |
need for an explanation |
weight |
Decision 26125
Full Text of Decision 26125
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant, by his statement "I see now that I was wrong in not disclosing my activity", is plainly not confessing to have "knowingly" made false statements. He is saying that he made an error in law, not that he knowingly deceived.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
benevolent work |
|
|
| penalties |
work without remuneration |
|
|
Decision A-0027.94
Full Text of Decision A-0027.94
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Summary:
The Board's and Umpire's reasons indicate that they simply inferred from the facts that claimant could not honestly believe that he was not working. Was this inference legally warranted? Under the circumstances (several factors considered), we have no doubt that the inference was justified.
Although the Umpire did not expressly indicate that he was looking for evidence of an intention, on reading his reasons as a whole it becomes clear that at no time did he forget that a subjective knowledge of the falsehood on the part of the speaker was crucial.
Decision 23694
Full Text of Decision 23694
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0027.94
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
business |
|
|
Decision 21506
Full Text of Decision 21506
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Summary:
The Board erred in law. If the beneficiary, through ignorance, made false statements as it says in its decision, it's because she did not "knowingly" make false statements.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
meaning of a term |
|
Decision 16623A
Full Text of Decision 16623A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Summary:
No evidence to indicate that claimant knew or intended to make false statements. The Board acknowledged that he made a mistake. A finding that he was careless and irresponsible is inconsistent with the deliberate deceit required to invoke a penalty.
Decision 18279
Full Text of Decision 18279
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Summary:
The mere fact that a statement is false or misleading does not trigger off s.47. There must be evidence of a nature which, in the absence of any reasonable explanation, would lead to the conclusion that the false statement could not otherwise but have been made knowingly.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
preparatory activities in commencing business |
|
|
| availability for work |
various activities |
setting up a business |
|
Decision 16610
Full Text of Decision 16610
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Summary:
The Board noted that the claimant was of the belief that if he did not draw wages from the company he was not doing any work for them. If that was the case he did not make statements "which he knew" to be false or misleading.
Decision 15216
Full Text of Decision 15216
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Summary:
There is abundant jurisprudence that in order to find that a false statement was made, a Board must find that claimant not only made the false statement but that she knew they were false and she made them for the purpose of getting benefits to which shewas not entitled.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
hearings |
tape-recording |
|
| board of referees |
right to be heard |
improper hearing |
|
| penalties |
proof |
need for an explanation |
|
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
by telephone |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
relations at work |
unhappy atmosphere |
|
Decision 12014
Full Text of Decision 12014
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Summary:
Error of law not to ask whether CEIC has proved that claimant made statement knowing it to be false.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
natural justice |
defined |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
