| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
voluntary disclosure policy |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant argued that the Commission had not followed its voluntary disclosure policy. The FCA disagreed and found that the BOR and the Umpire had sufficient evidence to reject the claimant's contention: the claimant had not made a full disclosure and as a consequence it dit not open the door to the waiver policy.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
clear and simple language |
|
|
Summary:
The FCA reaffirmed the principle that "when a claimant states on a reporting card that he or she has not worked or been paid during the reporting period, and the statements are false, it is reasonable to infer, in the absence of any satisfactory explanation, that the claimant knew that the statements were false". The Court found no such explanation in the case and dismissed the claimant's application for judicial review.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Summary:
The FCA reaffirmed the principle that "when a claimant states on a reporting card that he or she has not worked or been paid during the reporting period, and the statements are false, it is reasonable to infer, in the absence of any satisfactory explanation, that the claimant knew that the statements were false". The Court found no such explanation in the case and dismissed the claimant's application for judicial review.
