| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Summary:
Not sufficient for a BOR to simply state a claimant's credibility is "in question". Held by the FCA that the fact that the BOR erred in finding the claimant was not credible does not lead to the opposite conclusion. It does not mean also that the Commission failed to meet its burden of establishing that the claimant knowingly made false or misleading statements. The Commission cannot be faulted for the errors of the BOR.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
assess credibility |
duty |
Summary:
Commission employees need not present themselves for cross-examination before a BOR where alleged admissions by claimants are found within notes prepared by the Commission. The BOR is entitled to make a specific finding that a claimant is a credible witness notwithstanding conflicting statements found within notes taken by Commission staff during an interview. In the end, it is the role of the BOR to determine what weight, if any, should be given to them.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
week of unemployment |
full working week |
Summary:
Self-employment is not to be determined on week-to-week basis. Impractical to sanction a legal framework in which self-employment is determined by the number of hours worked in any one week. Such an understanding would require the BOR to set the maximum number of hours a claimant is entitled to work to consider the "minor in extent" provision. That approach would lead to the absurd result that in one week a claimant would be deemed to be self-employed, but not in others. Incompatible with the legislative scheme as a whole.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
week of unemployment |
minor in extent |
Summary:
Self-employment is not to be determined on week-to-week basis. Impractical to sanction a legal framework in which self-employment is determined by the number of hours worked in any one week. Such an understanding would require the BOR to set the maximum number of hours a claimant is entitled to work to consider the "minor in extent" provision. That approach would lead to the absurd result that in one week a claimant would be deemed to be self-employed, but not in others. Incompatible with the legislative scheme as a whole.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
board of referees |
hearings |
attendance of third party |
Summary:
Commission employees need not present themselves for cross-examination before a BOR where alleged admissions by claimants are found within notes prepared by the Commission. The BOR is entitled to make a specific finding that a claimant is a credible witness notwithstanding conflicting statements found within notes taken by Commission staff during an interview. In the end, it is the role of the BOR to determine what weight, if any, should be given to them.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
board of referees |
penalties |
proof |
Summary:
Not sufficient for a BOR to simply state a claimant's credibility is "in question". Held by the FCA that the fact that the BOR erred in finding the claimant was not credible does not lead to the opposite conclusion. It does not mean also that the Commission failed to meet its burden of establishing that the claimant knowingly made false or misleading statements. The Commission cannot be faulted for the errors of the BOR.
