| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
Summary:
This CUB is related to 100 other CUBs between 68945 and 69045 and CUB 67714A, some claimant appeals, some Commission appeals - CUB 68945 is the same decision for all. The cases all involve a system of banking time or accumulating hours between 1992 and 1997 by the employer, Pavages Continental, and certain employees. The employer pleaded guilty to a number of charges in Quebec Provincial Court and was fined $ 80,000. Claimants were subject to retroactive allocations of earnings and recalcutions of their benefit rates based on rulings of the Canada Revenue Agency, resulting in overpayments, along with penalties imposed for false or misleading statements. The Umpire limited the appeals to two issues: writing off of the overpayments and the quantum of the penalties imposed.
After an extensive review of the case law on write-offs, the Umpire concluded the following: " ... conscious of the limitations on my jurisdiction as an Umpire ..., I recommend that the Commission designate different agents to redo the work required by the guidelines and reassess repayment of the overpayment in each case, in order to determine whether the amounts risk imposing undue harship on the debtors.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
penalties |
record of employment |
|
Summary:
This CUB is related to 100 other CUBs between 68945 and 69045 and CUB 67714A, some claimant appeals, some Commission appeals - CUB 68945 is the same decision for all. The cases all involve a system of banking time or accumulating hours between 1992 and 1997 by the employer, Pavages Continental, and certain employees. The employer pleaded guilty to a number of charges in Quebec Provincial Court and was fined $ 80,000. Claimants were subject to retroactive allocations of earnings and recalculations of their benefit rates based on rulings of the Canada Revenue Agency, resulting in overpayments and penalties imposed for false or misleading statements. The Umpire limited the appeals to two issues: writing off of the overpayments and the quantum of the penalties imposed.
For some cases, the Umpire confirmed the Board's decisions by saying: "state of health being a factor that must be taken into consideration in determining whether the Commission exercised its discretionary authority judicially. In other cases, the Umpire found it impossible to find that the Board acted appropriately by ruling that the Commission did not exercise its discretionary authority judicially - the Board should have identified the applicable mitigating circumstances in support of its intervention in each case - if it was a financial issue, it should have set out in detail all the relevant evidence for its intervention. For other cases, the Umpire allowed the Commission's appeals and rescinded the Boards' decision with respect to the reduction or cancellation of the penalty.
