| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
types of claims |
|
|
Summary:
Ss. 40(1) of the Act specifies that "a claim for benefit" must be made for each week of unemployment. Such a claim is to be distinguished from an "initial claim for benefit" as defined in s. 5 and referred to in ss. 39(5).
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
|
|
Summary:
A claim for benefit in ss. 33(1) is different from an initial claim. The falsification of claimant's report card occurred in 6 separate instances, therefore 6 separate claims. The Commission had the discretion to impose a penalty of up to 3 times the rate of benefit for each of the 6 claims.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Summary:
In any event, the Umpire did not have jurisdiction to reduce the penalty imposed by the Commission. In relation to decisions involving the exercise of discretion on the part of the Commission, the Umpire exceeds his jurisdiction when he substitutes his own point of view for that of the Commission.
At best, had the Umpire properly found that the Board had committed a reviewable error in not overturning the decision of the Commission, his only power would have been to remit the matter back to the Board with an indication of the reasons why the decision of the Commission should be made anew.
