| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
Summary:
Claimant was having a great deal of personal difficulty at the time he claimed benefits. He left however the filling in of the cards to his wife and he signed them without checking the dates. Not reading cards before signing them is not a reasonable explanation for the false statements having been made to the Commission. False statements upheld but amount of penalty reduced by Umpire. Decision confirmed by FCA.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
penalties |
cards signed by third party |
|
Summary:
Claimant was having a great deal of personal difficulty at the time he claimed benefits. He left however the filling in of the cards to his wife and he signed them without checking the dates. Not reading cards before signing them is not a reasonable explanation for the false statements having been made to the Commission. False statements upheld but amount of penalty reduced by Umpire. Decision confirmed by FCA.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Summary:
Umpire of the view that there were significant extenuating circumstances (some were part of the oral evidence given at the hearing) surrounding the situation in which the false statements were made and penalty reduced to $100. The FCA recognized that it was a bordeline case but was not persuaded that the Umpire had erred in law. Commission appeal dismissed.
