Summary of Issue: Proof

Decision 56432 Full Text of Decision 56432

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
penalties	proof

Summary:

Umpire held that the BOR erred by applying opposing tests. The words "should have known" is clearly an objective test and had the effect of neutralizing, or even destroying, the subjective words "the claimant knew" and because the objective test is the last test applied by the Board that is the test upon which the Board purported to rely to resolve the issue. Claimant's appeal was allowed. The Commission appealed the Umpire's decision to the Federal Court as his decision goes against all established jurisprudence on similar issues.

Decision A-0743.97 Full Text of Decision A-0743.97

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
penalties	proof

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:
penalties	reconsideration of penalty	reduction
penalties	amount of penalty	mitigating circumstances
penalties	knowingly
penalties	clear and simple language

Decision A-0086.98 Full Text of Decision A-0086.98

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
penalties	proof

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:
penalties	misrepresentation
penalties	knowingly
board of referees	errors in law	misinterpretation of facts

Decision A-0418.97 Full Text of Decision A-0418.97

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
penalties	proof

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:
penalties	knowingly
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

Decision A-0137.97 Full Text of Decision A-0137.97

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
penalties	proof

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:
earnings	proof
proof	errors in law	burden of proof
penalties	knowingly
penalties	earnings	banking hours

Decision A-0136.97 Full Text of Decision A-0136.97

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
penalties	proof

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:
penalties	earnings	banking hours
penalties	knowingly
earnings	proof
proof	errors in law	burden of proof

Decision 38743 Full Text of Decision 38743

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
penalties	proof

Summary:

See FCA A-0743.97

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:
penalties	reconsideration of penalty	reduction
penalties	amount of penalty	mitigating circumstances
penalties	knowingly
penalties	clear and simple language

Decision A-0775.96 Full Text of Decision A-0775.96

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
penalties	proof

Summary:

The Umpire was wrong to draw a negative inference from the repayment made and to take it as a sign that the claimant knew his previous action to have been reprehensible.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
penalties	knowingly
proof	reimbursing of an overpayment
penalties	clear and simple language

Decision A-0600.94 Full Text of Decision A-0600.94

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
penalties	proof

Summary:

The onus of proof that rests upon the CEIC is to establish on a balance of probabilities, not beyond a reasonable doubt, that claimant made a statement that he knew to be false. Purely innocent representations do not subject claimant to a penalty, even though any money paid in error must be repaid. The evidence about knowledge must be evaluated by the Commission or the Board and findings of fact and credibility made. It may not be enough to say that claimant was not credible or that credibility is in doubt; more may be required of the fact-finder.This has been recognized in McDONALD.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
penalties	knowingly
penalties	business
penalties	work without remuneration
penalties	clear and simple language
penalties	rationale
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	proof

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	clear and simple language
penalties	rationale
penalties	proof	need for an explanation	weight

Decision 24384 Full Text of Decision 24384

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
penalties	proof

Summary:

To the extent that the Board seems to have given the Commission the burden of proving the unemployment, it has clearly erred in law. It also erred as to the degree of proof required while ruling that such proof must be convincing enough, i.e. beyond any reasonable doubt.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
penalties	applicability
board of referees	errors in law	burden of proof

Decision 24001 Full Text of Decision 24001

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
penalties	proof

Summary:

Claimant's lack of intent to defraud the Commission is not relevant for the imposition of a penalty. What is relevant is that the claimant made the false statement knowingly and deliberately. The appropriate standard is the ordinary civil standard of proof on a balance of probabilities. See McDONALD.

Decision A-0018.93 Full Text of Decision A-0018.93

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
penalties	proof

Summary:

Contrary to what the Chief Umpire said (that the proof required is higher than a mere balance of probabilities), the applicable standard of proof in a matter of this kind is the ordinary standard of proof on a balance of probabilities. The Board did not commit any error of law.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
umpires	grounds of appeal	natural justice and error in law or in fact

Decision 22272 Full Text of Decision 22272

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
penalties	proof

Summary:

Applicable principles and case law dealing with proof in matters of penalties are examined.

Decision 21609 Full Text of Decision 21609

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
penalties	proof

Summary:

Penalty imposed because claimant said shortage of work instead of quitting. There is no evidence regarding the false statement: report card, UI claim or statements. The burden is on the Commission to show that he made a misleading statement. It has failed to do so.

Decision 21287 Full Text of Decision 21287

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
penalties	proof

Summary:

Merely disbelieving claimant is not sufficient for a conclusion that he knowingly made a false statement, as per McDONALD. Clearly, the Board committed a serious error of law by dismissing claimant's appeal on the misrepresentation issue, based on its adverse credibility finding.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	errors in law	burden of proof

Decision A-0897.90 Full Text of Decision A-0897.90

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
penalties	proof

Summary:

Merely disbelieving the claimant's testimony is not a sufficient basis for the Board's conclusion that he knowingly made false or misleading statements. There is another element of proof required, relating to his state of mind, one on which the onus rests with the Commission. It was argued that it should be the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, or some intermediate between that and the ordinary civil standard. I am of the view that the appropriate standard is the ordinary civil standard of proof on a balance of probabilities. Ss. 33(1) does not create an offence. The use of the word "knowingly" is insufficient by itself to impute an offence requiring the full criminal standard of proof. It rather has the effect of saving innocent misrepresentations from penalties.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	jurisdiction	reason for existence of boards
board of referees	statement of facts	not to be read strictly

Decision 18611 Full Text of Decision 18611

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
penalties	proof

Summary:

Refer to: A-0897.90

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	jurisdiction	reason for existence of boards
board of referees	statement of facts	not to be read strictly

Decision 18063 Full Text of Decision 18063

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
penalties	proof

Summary:

Some Umpires have said that the proof must be beyond a reasonable doubt, others that the proof required falls "somewhat shy of" this but must be higher than the balance of probabilities. I am not persuaded that the Commission needs to go so far as to prove an intent to deceive.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
penalties	misinformation from commission
board of referees	statement of facts	not to be read strictly
board of referees	weight of statements	under oath
board of referees	weight of statements	credibility
penalties	proof	need for an explanation
board of referees	jurisdiction	assess credibility	duty

Decision 14750 Full Text of Decision 14750

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
penalties	proof

Summary:

As in criminal matters, certain judges require the guilty intent or proof beyond all reasonable doubt; others require less since this legislation is of a social nature. I share the views of CUB-12220: evidence required is less than in criminal cases, therefore in accordance with weight of evidence.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
penalties	earnings

Decision A0001.09 Full Text of Decision A0001.09

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
penalties	proof	Special warrants - Direct deposit

Summary:

In its representations before the FCA, the Commission conceded that the penalties applied under s. 38(1)(a) of the EIA should not have been imposed and that pénalties imposed under s. 38(1)(e) of the EIA should be reduced by half since benefits were deposited every second week into the claimant's bank account. The FCA cited subsection 77(2) of the EIA that requires that no benefits can be paid without a special warrant being drawn on the Receiver General. Since the claimant received benefits in this case, the FCA concluded that it was not open to the Umpire to hold that there were no special warrants. The FCA then concluded that the Umpire had made no error when he held that infractions based on the allegation that the claimant made misrepresentations by reference to direct deposits had not been establish before the BOR. In particular, the FCA is of the view that the direct deposit of benefits into the claimant's account cannot, in and of themselves, under any logic, allow for the conclusion that the claimant comes within the four corners of par. 38(1)(e) of the EIA.

Decision 61994A Full Text of Decision 61994A

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
penalties	proof	documents missing

Summary:

Because the evidence that could have answered the question "did the claimant knowingly make false or misleading statements", no longer exists, the Umpire agrees with the minority decision of the Board of Referees that, for lack of evidence, the claimant should not have to pay the penalty.

Decision A-0083.04 Full Text of Decision A-0083.04

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
penalties	proof	documents missing

Summary:

The Commission imposed a penalty against the claimant for failing to report that he was taking a training course. The FCA held that the Umpire had erred in determining that no evidence of false or misleading statements had been adduced. The Court ruled that this evidence, as suggested in Caverly, consisted in the confirmation of the questions asked under the Teledec system, the possible answers to each question, a readout of the Teledec calls that reproduces the claimant's answers, and a statement by a Commission officer that includes those questions and answers.

Decision 59589 Full Text of Decision 59589

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
penalties	proof	documents missing

Summary:

Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0083.04

Decision A-0420.01 Full Text of Decision A-0420.01

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
penalties	proof	documents missing

Summary:

Penalty imposed but reporting cards were not in evidence neither at the BOR nor at the Umpire level. The Court held that both instances erred in fact and in law as there were no evidence proving that the claimant had made false and misleading statements. Without the reporting cards, the Commission must establish what questions were asked of the claimant and what answers he gave that are alleged to be false or misleading. Reference made by the FCA to its decision in the Caverly case (A-0211.01).

Decision A-0211.01 Full Text of Decision A-0211.01

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
penalties	proof	documents missing

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:
board of referees	errors in law	denial of natural justice
board of referees	natural justice	free of bias
penalties	knowingly

Decision 50303A Full Text of Decision 50303A

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
penalties	proof	documents missing

Summary:

See summary indexed under FCA A-0420.01

Decision 26067A Full Text of Decision 26067A

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
penalties	proof	documents missing

Summary:

Report cards destroyed due to lapse of time. Statements in Observations, unsupported by the documents on which they are based, do not make proof, nor does reliance on computer records when the report cards on which they are based are missing. They do not provide acceptable proof of allegedly false statements.

Decision 41102 Full Text of Decision 41102

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
penalties	proof	need for an explanation

Summary:

There are two steps to consider in the decision to be made regarding false or misleading statements. The Commission must first prove that false or misleading statements were made and the claimant must then show that he had a valid reason for making these statements.

Decision 32201 Full Text of Decision 32201

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
penalties	proof	need for an explanation

Summary:

Claimant failed to explain the circumstances which led to the making of the statements. Therefore, the presumption arises that the claimant made the statement knowing it was false and with an intent to deceive the Commission. Penalty restored.

Decision 25429 Full Text of Decision 25429

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
penalties	proof	need for an explanation

Summary:

Jurisprudence has uniformly held that when a statement has been determined to be false or misleading, the claimant must assume the burden of proof by offering a reasonable explanation, to prove that the statement was not made knowingly. The claimant was unable to discharge this burden of proof.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
penalties	proof	need for an explanation	weight

Decision A-0633.91 Full Text of Decision A-0633.91

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
penalties	proof	need for an explanation

Summary:

The Commission has the onus of proving that a false statement was made. Claimant admits it in this case, and therefore it is his responsibility to provide a reasonable explanation. The reasonableness of the explanation is a question of fact to be determined by the Board. Upheld by the FC.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
penalties	proof	need for an explanation	weight

Decision 17671A Full Text of Decision 17671A

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
penalties	proof	need for an explanation

Summary:

Refer to: A-0633.91

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
penalties	proof	need for an explanation	weight

Decision 20769 Full Text of Decision 20769

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
penalties	proof	need for an explanation

Summary:

Onus on CEIC to establish that statements were made knowingly. If they are clearly false, the burden of proof is then on claimant to explain the circumstances, i.e. to provide a reasonable explanation. Whether the explanation is reasonable and sufficient is a question of fact.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
penalties	proof	need for an explanation	weight

Decision 20203 Full Text of Decision 20203

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
penalties	proof	need for an explanation

Summary:

Once the Commission has proved that the statement made was in fact false, then a presumption arises that the claimant made the statement knowing it was false and with an intention to deceive. The burden of proof is then on the claimant to explain the circumstances.

Decision 20064 Full Text of Decision 20064

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
penalties	proof	need for an explanation

Summary:

Mens rea may be established by objective facts. It has been suggested that if on the evidence, a statement is found to be false, and if that statement has been made by claimant and is not denied, this, in the absence of a reasonable explanation, may be sufficient to prove intent.

Decision 19741 Full Text of Decision 19741

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
penalties	proof	need for an explanation

Summary:

Where the statements are clearly false, in the absence of an explanation by claimant that the CEIC or a Board accepts as reasonable, the inference may be drawn that they were intended to be misleading, or at least were made carelessly without concern toavoid misleading the CEIC.

Decision 18351A Full Text of Decision 18351A

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
penalties	proof	need for an explanation

Summary:

The principle applicable may be called the "smoking gun" principle. The test is whether on that evidence, without claimant offering a reasonable explanation, there would be enough of a case to charge a jury. This is not shifting the burden of proof but weighing the evidence.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
penalties	charter

Decision 18514A Full Text of Decision 18514A

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
penalties	proof	need for an explanation

Summary:

Full-time real estate salesman who received commissions. It is sufficient for the Commission to prove that statements are factually incorrect and then the burden shifts to the claimant to demonstrate that they were not made knowingly, that there was an error or misunderstanding.

Decision 18063 Full Text of Decision 18063

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
penalties	proof	need for an explanation

Summary:

The Board's approach should be: (1) statement proven by CEIC to be false; (2) burden shifts to claimant to prove she did not know it to be false; (3) whether her explanation is credible; (4) not to be believed if considerable doubt; (5) to be believed if explanation likely true.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
penalties	misinformation from commission
penalties	proof
board of referees	statement of facts	not to be read strictly
board of referees	weight of statements	under oath
board of referees	weight of statements	credibility
board of referees	jurisdiction	assess credibility	duty

Decision 18013 Full Text of Decision 18013

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
penalties	proof	need for an explanation

Summary:

The insured has the opportunity to explain himself before the Board, to refer to simple mistakes or errors in calculation, not to prove that he is not guilty but to contradict conclusions in fact. If these explanations raise reasonable doubt, the penalty must be cancelled. False or erroneous statements do not raise presumption of guilt but impose an obligation on the part of the claimant to provide some explanation failing which CEIC is entitled to declare them made knowingly simply because of the fact that they are false.

Decision 17641 Full Text of Decision 17641

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
penalties	proof	need for an explanation

Summary:

True that burden of proof falls on shoulders of the claimant, once error demonstrated by CEIC, to prove he did not commit error intentionally to mislead. As statement was false, he had to provide reasonable explanation which he did.

Decision 17500 Full Text of Decision 17500

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
penalties	proof	need for an explanation

Summary:

Having established that claimant's statements were false, the burden of establishing that they were not made knowingly or with intent to deceive falls upon the claimant. The Board rejected claimant's explanation as not being credible.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
umpires	grounds of appeal	capricious finding	req'd

Decision 15216 Full Text of Decision 15216

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
penalties	proof	need for an explanation

Summary:

An inference may be drawn that a statement is knowingly false from the very fact that it is false. Then the burden of reasonable explanation shifts to claimant. Claimant must adduce credible evidence of good faith and lack of blameworthy conduct. This was done here.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:
penalties	knowingly
board of referees	hearings	tape-recording
board of referees	right to be heard	improper hearing
board of referees	weight of statements	by telephone
voluntarily leaving employment	relations at work	unhappy atmosphere

Decision 13298 Full Text of Decision 13298

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
penalties	proof	need for an explanation

Summary:

It is common sense when an answer of this nature [Did you work? No.] turns out to be false to impose on a claimant the burden of giving some reasonable or rational explanation. Not on the Commission to prove beyond reasonable doubt.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
penalties	clear and simple language
penalties	amount of penalty
penalties	rationale

Decision 12846 Full Text of Decision 12846

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
penalties	proof	need for an explanation

Summary:

CUB 12220 referred to and explained. Proof not all on Commission. What I believe is required of a claimant whose statements are found to be false is a reasonable explanation. To impose a greater onus on him would be onerous. To impose any more on the Commission would defeat s.33.

Decision 12220 Full Text of Decision 12220

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
penalties	proof	need for an explanation

Summary:

When false statements are made, they impose on a claimant the burden of adducing "some credible evidence of good faith and lack of blameworth conduct". As under the Customs Act, the presumption is raised that the false statement was made knowingly. [p._8]

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
penalties	rationale
board of referees	hearings	by telephone

Decision A-0238.97 Full Text of Decision A-0238.97

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
penalties	proof	need for an explanation	weight

Summary:

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. Court 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.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
penalties	courses of study

Decision 29212 Full Text of Decision 29212

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
penalties	proof	need for an explanation	weight

Summary:

The argument of "necessity" raised before the Umpire to justify the claimant's conduct fails to meet the criteria to the effect that such argument may be used only in cases of extreme urgency, whenever no other legal solution is available to correct the situation.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
penalties	earnings

Decision 25451 Full Text of Decision 25451

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
penalties	proof	need for an explanation	weight

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	clear and simple language
penalties	rationale
penalties	proof

Decision A-0600.94 Full Text of Decision A-0600.94

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
penalties	proof	need for an explanation	weight

Summary:

It may be that the Board meant to say merely that they did not believe the claimant and felt that she knew the report was false. If that was what they had said it would have been unimpeachable. This does not mean that anyone may escape a penalty merely by proclaiming a lack of knowledge. Protestations of ignorance are all too common in these cases. People often say they do not know something, when they in fact do. They do not have to be believed. If claimant claims to be ignorant of something that the whole world knows, the fact-finder could rightly disbelieve that claimant and find that there was, in fact, subjective knowledge, despite the denial. Not to know the obvious, therefore, might properly lead to an inference that one is lying.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
penalties	knowingly
penalties	business
penalties	work without remuneration
penalties	clear and simple language
penalties	rationale
penalties	proof

Decision 26057 Full Text of Decision 26057

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
penalties	proof	need for an explanation	weight

Summary:

In finding that it was not totally convinced by claimant's explanation and that the explanation was sufficiently reasonable to warrant a reduction of the penalty, the Board in fact concluded that there was a likelihood that the explanation was true. It should have allowed the case (CUB 18063).

Decision 25429 Full Text of Decision 25429

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
penalties	proof	need for an explanation	weight

Summary:

He claims that he was forced to act in this way, that all construction workers are subject to this scourge of accumulation of hours worked. I am of the opinion that a claimant may not evade s. 33 by transferring responsibility for his acts to a third party in order to exonerate himself.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
penalties	proof	need for an explanation

Decision 24720 Full Text of Decision 24720

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
penalties	proof	need for an explanation	weight

Summary:

It has been repeatedly held that the need of a claimant, however great, for the benefit money cannot be considered as justifying "knowingly" making a false statement, and that however sympathetic one may be for such need by a claimant, UI benefits are not intended to subsidize such need.

Decision 23483 Full Text of Decision 23483

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
penalties	proof	need for an explanation	weight

Summary:

According to the claimant, he made a false statement because he was under the influence of drugs. This cannot be construed as just cause for excusing a claimant for making a false statement.

Decision 23162 Full Text of Decision 23162

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
penalties	proof	need for an explanation	weight

Summary:

Despite the opportunities to do so, claimant has not provided an explanation for the statements and therefore, neither the Board nor I are able to consider the reasonableness of any such explanation. In view of the lack of any explanation, I must determine that the Board did not err.

Decision 21936 Full Text of Decision 21936

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
penalties	proof	need for an explanation	weight

Summary:

It is clear that claimant made statements which were false but I conclude that he did not do so knowingly. He gave an entirely credible explanation: he did not think that helping his wife out and receiving no wages was working.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment	minor in extent

Decision A-0633.91 Full Text of Decision A-0633.91

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
penalties	proof	need for an explanation	weight

Summary:

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
penalties	proof	need for an explanation

Decision 17671A Full Text of Decision 17671A

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
penalties	proof	need for an explanation	weight

Summary:

Refer to: A-0633.91

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
penalties	proof	need for an explanation

Decision 20769 Full Text of Decision 20769

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
penalties	proof	need for an explanation	weight

Summary:

Since the Board accepted as reasonable claimant's explanation that he was suffering from alcoholism and that he had many personal difficulties at the time of the false statements, there can be no half-way measure of accepting it only to the extent of reducing the penalty. Penalty set aside. The onus is on CEIC to establish that statements were made knowingly. Where they are clearly false, the burden of proof is then on claimant to explain the circumstances, i.e. to provide a reasonable explanation. Whether the explanation is reasonable and sufficient is a question of fact.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
penalties	proof	need for an explanation

Report a problem on this page

Date modified:: 2019-03-01