| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
|
Summary:
The claimant made seven false or misleading representations claiming he had not worked nor earned income over a fourteen week period from January 2006 to April 2006. The Commission imposed a penalty under s. 38(1) of the EIA and issued a notice of a serious violation under s. 7.1 of the EIA. The BOR upheld the decision of the Commission. The Umpire allowed the appeal, deciding that the Commission was precluded from assessing a penalty under s. 38 of the EIA because it had made no ruling on an allocation of earnings. Furthermore, the Umpire held that he had no jurisdiction to consider the matter of an allocation. The FCA ruled that the Umpire seized himself of an issue that was not before him and that an allocation of earnings is not a precondition to the imposition of a penalty under s. 38(1) of the EIA.
