Summary of Issue: Misrepresentation

Decision 76064 Full Text of Decision 76064

The claimant filed an initial claim for benefits after advising her employer that she would not be available for school year the 2006–2007. Claimant said she was taking an unpaid leave for one year. She stated that as of August 21, 2006, she was devoting between 20 and 30 hours a week to her self-employment business. The claimant’s electronic reports show that she did not report that she was self-employed, and that she was available during the entire period. The claimant also failed to report she had left the country twice while receiving benefits. The Commission properly submits that the claimant knowingly made false or misleading statements. All of the evidence shows that it is largely a matter of credibility. The BOR properly indicated, following the evidence, that the facts in the record clearly show that the claimant could not be unaware that she was on unpaid leave granted by her employer, that she was starting up her business and that she travelled outside Canada and had to report her absences. The claimant’s appeal is therefore dismissed by the Umpire.

Decision 72394 Full Text of Decision 72394

He applied for EI benefit and a claim was established February 2005. He worked for a construction company from July 2004 to February 2005, when his employment ended due to a shortage of work. He reported that he holds less than 40% of the shares in the construction company. An investigation showed that the claimant was a 50% shareholder in two companies. The companies had financial problems and the accountant recommended forming a new entity, a construction company. The Commission imposed a penalty on the claimant for making 8 false statements and issued a notice of violation classified as very serious. The claimant's appeal is dismissed. Similar case 72393

Decision 72060 Full Text of Decision 72060

The claimant submitted various Records of Employment. One from a management group which Canada Revenue Agency determined was not insurable employment. The claimant had not accumulated the minimum number of hours of insurable employment to establish a benefit period. The Commission cancelled the benefit period which led to an overpayment of $3,480.00. The Commission determined that the claimant had knowingly provided a false Record of Employment and imposed a non-monetary penalty. The Commission also determined that the claimant had knowingly made false or misleading statements when completing his report cards and it imposed a penalty of $2,891.00 and issued a notice of violation. The claimant's appeal was dismissed and the Commission's decision is upheld.

Decision T-0027.99 Full Text of Decision T-0027.99

A false statement or representation is one that is contrary to the truth; a misleading statement or representation is one that causes error. Furthermore, referring to the decision of the FCA in Lai (A-0525.97), the Court notes that the integrity of the employment insurance statutory scheme rests on the good faith of its beneficiaries.

Decision A-0308.97 Full Text of Decision A-0308.97

As a result of an investigation the Commission disqualified the cliamant from benefits because he quit his job without just cause. Also a penalty was imposed for a ROE. BOR find the claimant's statements inconsistent that in fact, he was not laid off due to shortage but rather he quit and the ROE was incorrect. Umpire was unable to find that the BOR made any reviewable error in its decison. Decision's maintained by the Court.

Decision 44162 Full Text of Decision 44162

Claimant did not declare on the benefit claim form that he owned more than 40% of the shares of a company. Benefit period cancelled and penalty imposed for each of the cards (7) completed by the claimant. Claimant disagreed and said that he had never made any false statements on his cards. Decided that even if the statement made periodically on each card did not contain any false information, it was still misleading since it enabled him to continue to received benefits which would certainly not have been granted if it were not for the original false declaration.

Decision A-0171.98 Full Text of Decision A-0171.98

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.

Decision A-0086.98 Full Text of Decision A-0086.98

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.

Decision 40975 Full Text of Decision 40975

Penalty imposed on employer for having made five false statements. The family business was having major financial problems, so the family members agreed to have their wages suspended but continued to carry out their usual duties while receiving benefits. Umpire held that the reason for submitting false records of employment was a shortage of capital rather than a lack of employment. It was therefore found that false statements had indeed been made.

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-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-0236.97 Full Text of Decision A-0236.97

Case identical to A-0239.97. See indexed summary.

Decision A-0237.97 Full Text of Decision A-0237.97

Case identical to A-0239.97. See indexed summary.

Decision 43908 Full Text of Decision 43908

Claimant applied for maternity benefits and signed a commitment to disclose any information that could affect her benefits while she was exempt from having to complete report cards. The claimant worked, but did not disclose the fact. Penalty of $1,239 imposed. Claimant alleged that she did not sign the exemption when she claimed parental benefits. According to the Umpire, this does not matter because it is obvious that the commitment signed when she claimed maternity benefits continued to apply since the Commission did not send her any report cards.