| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
rationale |
|
|
Summary:
Penalty provisions are there to keep people honest. The Commission must substantially rely on the good faith and honesty of claimants when they fill out their report cards which the Commission cannot constantly and continually monitor. [p. 8]
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
hearings |
by telephone |
|
Summary:
Question at issue: penalty. This is unfortunate in that the test of credibility of a claimant, the give and take of an enquiry having all the parties in personal attendance were ingredients which the Board had, of necessity, to do without. [p. 4]
| 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]
