Decision 72394
Full Text of Decision 72394
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
penalties |
weeks of unemployment |
|
|
Summary:
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
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
penalties |
self employed |
|
|
penalties |
misrepresentation |
|
|
Decision 42158
Full Text of Decision 42158
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
penalties |
weeks of unemployment |
|
|
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 |
knowingly |
|
|
board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
self-employment assistance |
applicability |
|
|
board of referees |
errors in law |
discretionary power |
|
Decision 40075
Full Text of Decision 40075
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
penalties |
weeks of unemployment |
|
|
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 |
|
|
penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
board of referees |
errors in law |
weight of statements |
|
Decision A-0986.96
Full Text of Decision A-0986.96
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
penalties |
weeks of unemployment |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant held 50% of the shares of the company, with her ex-husband. She devoted 30 hours per week on average to this business, but claimed that she was at the same time working 50 hours a week for an employer. In addition, she invested the amount of $15,000 for the purchase of equipment. The finding of the BOR was not perverse or capricious, and the Umpire refused to intervene. Referring to its decisions in Jouan (A-366-94) and Taschuk (A-616-95), the FCA dismissed the application for judicial review.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
week of unemployment |
minor in extent |
|
|
Decision 13160
Full Text of Decision 13160
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
penalties |
weeks of unemployment |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant might well have been induced into his errors by his own representative. Everyone must understand that accurate answers are to be given. If there be doubt, claimants ought to resolve it by enquiries and not by assuming that long hours of hard work do not.
Decision 12625
Full Text of Decision 12625
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
penalties |
weeks of unemployment |
|
|
Summary:
He explained his actions [working for his father] by saying that since he received no remuneration he did not believe he was obliged to report he was working. Doubt resolved in his favour.