Summary of Issue: Charter

Decision 66378A Full Text of Decision 66378A

The claimant argued the Employment Insurance Act is subject to the Charter and that four years having intervened there was an unreasonable delay of the hearing. The Charter in relation to undue delay in criminal matters does not apply to an administrative allegation of administrative fraud.

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-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 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 39458 Full Text of Decision 39458

In order for a penalty to be imposed under section 33 of the UI Act, it must be shown that a claimant intended to make a false and misleading statement. In other words, it is essential that the false statement was made knowingly. This requirement means that innocent misrepresentations are not subject to a penalty.

Decision 18351A Full Text of Decision 18351A

It is argued that the penalty provisions in s.47 are such that the rights of the claimant to a presumption of innocence and to a trial thereon under para. 11(d) of the Charter are breached. Argument dismissed.

Decision 17860 Full Text of Decision 17860

Alleged violation of ss.15 and 7 of the Charter on the basis that ss.33(1) and 103(1)(a) of the UI Act created 2 classes of persons who had committed the same offence. Judgments from Ontario Courts examined.