| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Summary:
Penalty of $3, 120 reduced to $156 by Umpire. Held by FCA that a BOR or an Umpire may not intervene and substitute their appreciation as to the amount to be assessed to a penalty unless it is clear to them that the Commission has exercised its discretion "unjudicially". No evidence on file to lead to such a conclusion.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
penalties |
proof |
|
Summary:
Principle set out in Gates (A-0600.94) regarding the burden of proof when dealing with false statements reaffirmed by FCA. The false statements were so obvious and the circumstances, especially "the fact that the claimant has been on claim several times before" and that the "cards are straight forward", were such that the BOR was right in saying that it was for the claimant then to offer an explanation that would rebut the inference that the false statements were knowingly made.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
Summary:
Penalty of $3, 120 reduced to $156 by Umpire. Held by FCA that a BOR or an Umpire may not intervene and substitute their appreciation as to the amount to be assessed to a penalty unless it is clear to them that the Commission has exercised its discretion "unjudicially". No evidence on file to lead to such a conclusion.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
penalties |
knowingly |
|
Summary:
Principle set out in Gates (A-0600.94) regarding the burden of proof when dealing with false statements reaffirmed by FCA. The false statements were so obvious and the circumstances, especially "the fact that the claimant has been on claim several times before" and that the "cards are straight forward", were such that the BOR was right in saying that it was for the claimant then to offer an explanation that would rebut the inference that the false statements were knowingly made.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
penalties |
clear and simple language |
|
Summary:
Principle set out in Gates (A-0600.94) regarding the burden of proof when dealing with false statements reaffirmed by FCA. The false statements were so obvious and the circumstances, especially "the fact that the claimant has been on claim several times before" and that the "cards are straight forward", were such that the BOR was right in saying that it was for the claimant then to offer an explanation that would rebut the inference that the false statements were knowingly made.
