Decision T1561.17
Full Text of Decision T1561.17
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant did not declare his vacation pay from the City of Calgary as a result of his separation from employment.The Commission determined that there was an overpayment and that the claimant knowingly made false or misleading statements by failing to declare his period of employment on his renewal application and by failing to declare his vacation pay on the report. The Applicant appealed the reconsideration decision to the General Division. The General Division found that the Applicant knowingly made a false representation to the Commission when he failed to report that he received vacation pay. It also found that the Commission had reasonably utilized its discretion in assessing the penalty. The Appeal Division determined that there was no reviewable error under section 58(1) of DESDA, the Appeal Division refused the application for leave to appeal. The judge found it a reasonable finding that the Applicant would have had no reasonable chance of success at the Appeal Division and dismissed the application.
Decision A-0578.02
Full Text of Decision A-0578.02
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Summary:
The Court stated that the circumstances in which a claimant makes knowingly false representations can, at the most, only reduce the amount of the penalty. The Court found that the Umpire was correct in concluding that the BOR had erred in exonerating the claimant from liability because of his gambling addiction.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
Decision A-0412.02
Full Text of Decision A-0412.02
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Summary:
The Umpire had reduced the penalty from 100% to 50% because he considered the part time nature and short duration of the employment to be mitigating factors. The Court restated that an Umpire can only intervene when it can be determined that the Commission did not exercise its discretion judicially.
Decision 57103
Full Text of Decision 57103
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Summary:
Employer issued a false Record of Employment. Penalty of $4,000 imposed. With no reason, the Board of Referees reduced the penalty to $1,000. Decision overturned by the Umpire who stated that the Board had exceeded its jurisdiction. Referred to FCA decisions in Martin, A 1001.92 and Cou Lai, A 0525.97.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
imposed to employer |
|
|
Decision 55073
Full Text of Decision 55073
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Summary:
Penalty of $16,520 (200% of the overpayment) imposed. The BOR refused to interfere. Umpire found that there was no indication of what factors were considered in fixing the amount of the penalty, except for the fact that it constituted a second infraction by the claimant. The Commission has the responsibility to inquire in all factors relevant in fixing the penalty, including a claimant's ability to pay. Matter returned to a new BOR to determine if the Commission has exercised its discretion judicially.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
second offence |
|
Decision A-0353.01
Full Text of Decision A-0353.01
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Summary:
A penalty imposed by the Commission that is reduced to zero by the Board of Referees amounts to no penalty at all and, in reality, is a usurpation of power that resides exclusively in the Commission under the legislation. Where, however, mitigating circumstances are shown to the BOR, the Board may reduce the quantum of the penalty to an amount that it considers commensurate with those circumstances. Reference made to the FCA decision in Turgeon (A-0715.95).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
remove |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Decision 54179
Full Text of Decision 54179
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Summary:
Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0412.02
Decision 51357
Full Text of Decision 51357
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0353.01
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
remove |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Decision A-0549.99
Full Text of Decision A-0549.99
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Summary:
Penalty initially imposed at $3,345 but reduced by the Commission to $1,410 in light of the claimant's stress due to the breakup of her marriage and her financial difficulties. Umpire held that the penalty was based on a percentage formula which is not the exercise of a judicial discretion and further reduced the penalty to $750. Decision reversed by the FCA which ruled that the Commission had considered the particular circumstances of the applicant and that there was not an unreasonable exercise by the Commission of its discretionary power to impose a penalty.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
| umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Decision A-0299.98
Full Text of Decision A-0299.98
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Summary:
Penalty of $7,740 imposed initially but reduced twice by the Commission based on extenuating circumstances. Umpire concluded that the BOR should review the matter once more to either reduce or vary the penalty or to write it off. The FCA held that the Commission had exercised its discretion in a judicial manner and that neither the BOR or the Umpire could write-off a penalty or overpayment.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
| umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Decision A-0378.98
Full Text of Decision A-0378.98
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Summary:
Claimant brought evidence to BOR that she had health problems when false statements were made. BOR upheld the penalty but Umpire, based on FCA decision in Dunham (A-0708.95), decided to reduce it by 50%. The FCA ruled that the Umpire had no jurisdiction to reduce the penalty since the Commission and the BOR had exercised their discretion in a judicial manner.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
| umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Decision 45255
Full Text of Decision 45255
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0549.99
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
| umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Decision 44167
Full Text of Decision 44167
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Summary:
The severity of the penalty is subject to the Commission's discretion, although the Commission must work within a certain framework and certain limits. The Commission decided on the severity of the penalty with full knowledge of exactly the same facts that BOR took into account in reducing the penalty. In such circumstances, what is involved is not a discretionary decision by the Commission that can be corrected or cancelled. BOR members may view the same circumstances differently from the Commission, but this is not sufficient grounds to entitle BOR to revise the decision.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
discretionary power |
|
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
remove |
|
Decision A-0743.97
Full Text of Decision A-0743.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Summary:
Penalty of $3, 120 reduced to $156 by Umpire. Held by FCA that a BOR or an Umpire may not intervene and substitute their appreciation as to the amount to be assessed to a penalty unless it is clear to them that the Commission has exercised its discretion "unjudicially". No evidence on file to lead to such a conclusion.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
proof |
|
|
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
| penalties |
clear and simple language |
|
|
Decision A-0525.97
Full Text of Decision A-0525.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Summary:
FCA reiterates its position that as long as the Commission exercises its discretionary power judicially, that is to say by taking into account all relevant considerations and without being influenced by any improper ones, neither the BOR, the umpire nor this Court, is entitled to interfere.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
remove |
|
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
|
|
| penalties |
commission policy |
|
|
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
second offence |
|
Decision A-0845.97
Full Text of Decision A-0845.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Summary:
Identical case to A-0846.97. See summary indexed under it.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
| penalties |
earnings |
banking hours |
|
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
Decision A-0846.97
Full Text of Decision A-0846.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Summary:
False Record of Employment (banking of hours) submitted by the claimant in order to obtain a higher rate of benefit. Penalty imposed at 300%. Earnings were also not reported one week; penalty imposed at 200%. In light of the decisions in Morin (A-453-95 and A-681-96), Dunham (A-708-95), Stark (A-701-96) and Turgeon (A-715-95), the Umpire refused to intervene in the amount of the penalties. The FCA, recognizing that the penalties imposed are not all of the same severity, assumed that the Commission had considered them case by case and dismissed the claimant’s appeal.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
earnings |
banking hours |
|
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
Decision A-0847.97
Full Text of Decision A-0847.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Summary:
Identical case to A-0846.97. See summary indexed under it.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
| penalties |
earnings |
banking hours |
|
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
Decision A-0857.97
Full Text of Decision A-0857.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Summary:
Identical case to A-0846.97. See summary indexed under it.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
| penalties |
earnings |
banking hours |
|
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
Decision A-0858.97
Full Text of Decision A-0858.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Summary:
Identical case to A-0846.97. See summary indexed under it.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
| penalties |
earnings |
banking hours |
|
Decision A-0639.97
Full Text of Decision A-0639.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Summary:
Penalty of $5,200.00 imposed at the rate of 200% for making 20 false statements. Possibility of reducing the amount not considered by BOR (position dating from before Morin, A-453-95). Situation recognized by the Umpire who, even in light of the Morin decision, found that a reduction in the penalty was not justified in this case. FCA refused to intervene, ruling that it was satisfied the Umpire had taken into consideration all the aggravating and extenuating circumstances that appear in the file.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
second offence |
|
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
Decision 39997
Full Text of Decision 39997
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0378.98
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
Decision 37691A
Full Text of Decision 37691A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0299.98
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
| umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Decision A-0734.96
Full Text of Decision A-0734.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Summary:
Umpire of the view that there were significant extenuating circumstances (some were part of the oral evidence given at the hearing) surrounding the situation in which the false statements were made and penalty reduced to $100. The FCA recognized that it was a bordeline case but was not persuaded that the Umpire had erred in law. Commission appeal dismissed.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
| penalties |
cards signed by third party |
|
|
Decision A-0769.96
Full Text of Decision A-0769.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Summary:
By deciding to rescind the penalty on the ground that he was applying the Morin Judgment, the Umpire committed an error of law in that he failed to apply the very first requirement established by this Court in the Morin case: one must first conclude that the Commission exercised its discretionary power in a non-judicial manner when it imposed a penalty upon the claimant. No reversible error made by the BOR. Umpire merely substituted his own opinion for that of the Commission and the BOR.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
remove |
|
| umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Decision 38743
Full Text of Decision 38743
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Summary:
Refer to FCA A-0743.97
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
| penalties |
clear and simple language |
|
|
| penalties |
proof |
|
|
Decision 38201
Full Text of Decision 38201
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Summary:
There are legal precedents which indicate that a claimant's serious problems, stemming either from illness or from cancellation of debts, may be taken into consideration to reduce a penalty. Umpire referred the case back to the Board of Referees so that they themselves could assess the amount of the penalty.
Decision A-0681.96
Full Text of Decision A-0681.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Summary:
The Umpire acknowledged certain extenuating circumstances on the record, namely the claimant’s health status and more particularly her memory losses caused by the morphine medication, and reduced the penalty from $1,690 to $845. The FCA found that it would have been desirable for the Umpire to rule clearly, in the first place, on the legality of the exercise of discretionary power by the Commission before determining the appropriateness of varying the penalty. However, the Court inferred from the Umpire’s two decisions that he had carried out this step and had thus not erred in reducing the penalty.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
|
|
| penalties |
commission policy |
|
|
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
Decision A-0701.96
Full Text of Decision A-0701.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Summary:
The BOR recognized some mitigating factors (penalty greater than the penalty amount imposed on the respondent's employer and claimant's financial hardship) but did not reduce the amount of penalty because it believed it lacked authority to do so. Amount reduced by Umpire. The FCA held that there was no "decision or order" made by the BOR that could be reviewed by the Umpire. The Court, referring to its previous decisions in Morin (A-453-95), Dunham (A-708-95) and Mucciarone (A-464-96), allowed the Commission's appeal and ordered that the case be remitted back to the BOR for determination of the amount of penalty.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
Decision 37891
Full Text of Decision 37891
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Summary:
See FCA A-0525.97
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
remove |
|
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
second offence |
|
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
|
|
| penalties |
commission policy |
|
|
Decision A-0464.96
Full Text of Decision A-0464.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Summary:
Penalty of $4,536 was reduced to $18 by the Board of Referees, which cited the claimant’s precarious financial position. This decision was reversed by the Umpire, who found that the BOR had no jurisdiction to vary the amount of the penalty. This decision was set aside by the FCA, which referred the matter back to the Umpire for him to determine whether, given the claimant’s financial position, the BOR had judicially exercised its discretionary power in cancelling, for all practical purposes, the penalty imposed by the Commission. The FCA reminded the Umpire that a BOR should not cancel a penalty or reduce it to a token amount unless the circumstances are exceptional. **NOTE: In a subsequent decision (CUB 33564A), the Umpire took into consideration certain extenuating circumstances that had not been present initially, and reduced the penalty by half (from $4,536 to $2.268). This decision was not deemed to be unreasonable by the Commission, and no appeal was made to the FCA.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
|
|
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
Decision A-0238.96
Full Text of Decision A-0238.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Summary:
First penalty imposed in December 1992 at 100% for weeks from 28-06-92 to 19-07-92. A further audit was conducted during the early part of 1993 and a second penalty was imposed at 200% for other weeks (some prior and some after the previous period) in 1992. Second penalty reduced at 100% by Umpire who considered it as an ongoing offence. Decision reversed by FCA who considered that Umpire had exceeded his jurisdiction.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
second offence |
|
Decision A-0708.95
Full Text of Decision A-0708.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Summary:
The Umpire’s decision to reduce the penalty from $3,553 to $850 was reversed by the FCA. The Court found that the Board of Referees had failed to exercise its jurisdiction fully in refusing to intervene in the Commission’s decision on the ground that only the Commission had the competence to intervene. The Umpire was ordered to refer the matter back to the BOR so that it could rule on the issue as to whether the amount of the penalty had not been determined by the Commission without taking some relevant considerations into account.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
commission policy |
|
|
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
|
|
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
Decision 34820
Full Text of Decision 34820
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Summary:
Penalty of $3,352 imposed on claimant (2nd offence). Penalty not out of proportion to the acts committed by the claimant and is not the maximum allowed by the Act. The Commission acted within the guidelines of the Act.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
| board of referees |
natural justice |
defined |
|
Decision 28068A
Full Text of Decision 28068A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Summary:
Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0681.96
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
|
|
| penalties |
commission policy |
|
|
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
Decision A-0453.95
Full Text of Decision A-0453.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Summary:
The FCA found that, when they have jurisdiction and decide there are grounds to intervene, the Board of Referees and the Umpire have the authority to give the decision that the Commission should have given, regardless of whether that decision is considered to be a discretionary one. Matter referred back to an Umpire for modification of the penalty imposed if he concludes that the Commission did not exercise its discretion in a judicial manner.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
Decision A-0135.95
Full Text of Decision A-0135.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Summary:
Agreement with employer to work without pay with the promise of being hired. Penalty cancelled by the Umpire on the ground that this was a case in which the claimant did not believe he was working because he was not being paid. The Court simply reversed the Umpire’s decision.
Decision 26884
Full Text of Decision 26884
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0135.95
Decision 25635
Full Text of Decision 25635
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0623.94
Decision 26398
Full Text of Decision 26398
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0037.95
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
length |
powers |
Decision A-0037.95
Full Text of Decision A-0037.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Summary:
Umpire's decision to reduce the penalty imposed "as a rather symbolic measure" was ill-founded, has been reversed and the case is referred for a new decision taking it for granted that the claimant's appeal must be rejected.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
length |
powers |
Decision A-0623.94
Full Text of Decision A-0623.94
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Summary:
The umpire's decision to reduce the penalty is reversed. The Commission's decision to impose a penalty and the amount of this penalty are obviously matters that the Act leaves to the discretion of the Commission. This fact does not preclude review by higher authorities.
Decision 29211
Full Text of Decision 29211
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Summary:
Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0708.95
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
commission policy |
|
|
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
|
|
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
Decision 23437
Full Text of Decision 23437
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0694.93
Decision A-0694.93
Full Text of Decision A-0694.93
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Summary:
If the Commission had made a palpable error which the Board failed to disclose, for example if it had fixed the penalty at an amount in excess of the maximum allowed or if it had calculated the penalty on a wrong basis, the Umpire would have been under a duty to refer the matter back to the Board.
The Umpire did not dispute the finding of the Board that the CEIC was correct in imposing a penalty, it being clear that claimant had knowingly made false statements. The Umpire does not have jurisdiction to substitute his own discretion for that of the CEIC with regard to the amount of the penalty.
Decision A-0693.93
Full Text of Decision A-0693.93
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Summary:
"There is jurisprudence to the effect that the Umpire can reduce the amount of the penalty; here, a penalty based on 50%, rather than 100%, would be adequate", said the Umpire. In the absence of a finding of error on the part of the Board, the Umpire was without jurisdiction to vary its decision.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
clear and simple language |
|
|
Decision 22763
Full Text of Decision 22763
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0693.93
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
clear and simple language |
|
|
Decision 21472
Full Text of Decision 21472
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-1284.92
Decision A-1284.92
Full Text of Decision A-1284.92
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Summary:
It appears clear to us, for the reasons given in SMITH S., that the Umpire exceeded his jurisdiction by reducing the penalties that the Commission had imposed upon the claimant. The Umpire could not substitute his discretion to that of the Commission who had imposed a penalty under ss. 33(1).
Decision 22527
Full Text of Decision 22527
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0330.93
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
|
|
| basic concepts |
types of claims |
|
|
Decision A-0330.93
Full Text of Decision A-0330.93
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Summary:
In any event, the Umpire did not have jurisdiction to reduce the penalty imposed by the Commission. In relation to decisions involving the exercise of discretion on the part of the Commission, the Umpire exceeds his jurisdiction when he substitutes his own point of view for that of the Commission.
At best, had the Umpire properly found that the Board had committed a reviewable error in not overturning the decision of the Commission, his only power would have been to remit the matter back to the Board with an indication of the reasons why the decision of the Commission should be made anew.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
types of claims |
|
|
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
|
|
Decision 23819
Full Text of Decision 23819
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Summary:
The law is clear that I have no authority to reduce the amount of the penalty in any way. As the imposition of a penalty is an administrative act, that matter is strictly within the jurisdiction of the Commission (CUB 20830).
Decision 23531
Full Text of Decision 23531
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Summary:
Furthermore, on the basis of the case law cited above (CUB 20766 and 20830), I am of the opinion that neither the Board nor the Umpire has the power to reduce the penalty imposed by the Commission because this power is a discretionary authority that belongs solely to the Commission.
Decision 22829
Full Text of Decision 22829
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Summary:
I concluded in CUB 20766 that the Board of Referees did not have the power to force the CEIC to cancel or modify a penalty unless it was proved that it had exercised its discretionary power arbitrarily. I recommend to the CEIC that it reduce the penalty to the minimum but it is not obliged to follow this recommendation.
Decision 12262A
Full Text of Decision 12262A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Summary:
I invited further submissions as to whether or not a Board or an Umpire can interfere with, reduce or cancel penalty assessments. In my view, the answer is yes.
Decision 21413
Full Text of Decision 21413
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Summary:
I must find that the Board did not err in holding that it had the power to vary the amount of the penalty in light of the extenuating circumstances. This means that I do not share the opinion expressed in CUB 20766.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
commission policy |
|
|
Decision 20830
Full Text of Decision 20830
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Summary:
She evidently does not understand that it is not within the jurisdiction of the Board to establish the amount of a penalty, this being the sole right of the Commission. The Umpire cannot reduce the penalty any more than the Board can.
Decision A-0353.01
Full Text of Decision A-0353.01
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
remove |
|
Summary:
A penalty imposed by the Commission that is reduced to zero by the Board of Referees amounts to no penalty at all and, in reality, is a usurpation of power that resides exclusively in the Commission under the legislation. Where, however, mitigating circumstances are shown to the BOR, the Board may reduce the quantum of the penalty to an amount that it considers commensurate with those circumstances. Reference made to the FCA decision in Turgeon (A-0715.95).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Decision 51357
Full Text of Decision 51357
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
remove |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0353.01
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Decision 44167
Full Text of Decision 44167
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
remove |
|
Summary:
The severity of the penalty is subject to the Commission's discretion, although the Commission must work within a certain framework and certain limits. The Commission decided on the severity of the penalty with full knowledge of exactly the same facts that BOR took into account in reducing the penalty. In such circumstances, what is involved is not a discretionary decision by the Commission that can be corrected or cancelled. BOR members may view the same circumstances differently from the Commission, but this is not sufficient grounds to entitle BOR to revise the decision.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
discretionary power |
|
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Decision A-0525.97
Full Text of Decision A-0525.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
remove |
|
Summary:
FCA reiterates its position that as long as the Commission exercises its discretionary power judicially, that is to say by taking into account all relevant considerations and without being influenced by any improper ones, neither the BOR, the umpire nor this Court, is entitled to interfere.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
|
|
| penalties |
commission policy |
|
|
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
second offence |
|
Decision A-0769.96
Full Text of Decision A-0769.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
remove |
|
Summary:
By deciding to rescind the penalty on the ground that he was applying the Morin Judgment, the Umpire committed an error of law in that he failed to apply the very first requirement established by this Court in the Morin case: one must first conclude that the Commission exercised its discretionary power in a non-judicial manner when it imposed a penalty upon the claimant. No reversible error made by the BOR. Umpire merely substituted his own opinion for that of the Commission and the BOR.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
| umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Decision 37891
Full Text of Decision 37891
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
remove |
|
Summary:
See FCA A-0525.97
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 |
amount of penalty |
second offence |
|
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
|
|
| penalties |
commission policy |
|
|
Decision A-0694.94
Full Text of Decision A-0694.94
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
remove |
|
Summary:
Whether the phrase "in its opinion" has the effect of insulating the Commission's decision to impose a penalty from review by the BOR. Held that BOR possesses the requisite jurisdiction to formulate its own opinion with respect to a false or misleading statement.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
independent decision-making |
|
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
Decision 25953
Full Text of Decision 25953
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
remove |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0694.94
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
independent decision-making |
|
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
Decision 24420A
Full Text of Decision 24420A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
remove |
|
Summary:
Penalty cancelled by the Board. Held that the Board of Referees had no jurisdiction to forgive a penalty and it erred in law when it concluded as it did.
Decision 25256
Full Text of Decision 25256
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
remove |
|
Summary:
In Smith and Simard, it was found that only the Commission has the discretionary power to assess a penalty. Consequently, the Board has no jurisdiction to intervene in this issue, and its decision to rescind the penalty is illegal. [Although this point was not appealed.]
