Summary of Issue: Commission Policy

Decision A-0387.99 Full Text of Decision A-0387.99

Umpire had arbitrarily reduced the penalty from 100% to 25%. The FCA held that the Umpire gave no reasons to indicate how he arrived at a penalty of 25%. The penalty imposed at 100% was well below the maximum limit set by S.38 of the EIA. The Commission found no extenuating circumstances and the Court was unable to conclude that the Commission had not exercised its discretionary power in a judicial manner. No basis for the Umpire to interfere with the Commission's decision.

Decision 42402A Full Text of Decision 42402A

The automatic imposition of a 100% penalty where there are "no extenuating circumstances" is not the exercise of a judicious discretion. Umpire recognizes that there should be some uniformity in the penalties imposed and that the Commission is entitled to due deference in its imposition of penalties. Ruled however that unless the Commission is prepared to say why it automatically imposes a 100% penalty in every case of "no extenuating circumstances", then it is not acting judiciously but arbitrarily. Penalty reduced to 25%. Commission appeal to the FCA is pending.

Decision 44162 Full Text of Decision 44162

Claimant did not declare on the benefit claim form that he owned more than 40% of the shares of a company. Benefit period cancelled and penalty imposed for each of the cards (7) completed by the claimant. Claimant disagreed and said that he had never made any false statements on his cards. Decided that even if the statement made periodically on each card did not contain any false information, it was still misleading since it enabled him to continue to received benefits which would certainly not have been granted if it were not for the original false declaration.

Decision A-0525.97 Full Text of Decision A-0525.97

Umpire of the view that with respect to "recidivism", the criminal law rule should apply, i.e. a more severe penalty for a second offence can be imposed only after a conviction has been entered for the first one. Position rebutted by the FCA who held that in an administrative law context, sanctions must be viewed not so much as punishment, but is a deterrent.**The Commission's practices (recidivism policy) are established not as limitations of discretion but as a means of determining guidelines that will assure some consistency. The criminal law rule approach adopted by the umpire would limit the discretion to impose penalties conferred on the Commission and would defeat the will of Parliament.

Decision A-0681.96 Full Text of Decision A-0681.96

The Court, relying on the definition of extenuating circumstances given in a manual of the Commission [topic 21 of the Insurance Services Policy Manual, in lieu of chapter 18 of the Digest of Benefit Entitlement Principles], ruled that the Commission had unduly limited its discretionary power. The FCA further stated that all factors existing prior to or at the time of the imposition of a penalty and of a nature to affect the rightness of the penalty are relevant to the establishment of it.

Decision 37891 Full Text of Decision 37891

See FCA A-0525.97

Decision A-0708.95 Full Text of Decision A-0708.95

In order to authorize his intervention, the Umpire cited the existence of a policy of the Commission that allegedly had the effect of preventing the officer responsible from evaluating all the circumstances. The FCA first noted that this policy was not before it, and added that there was no reason to think that this policy was more constraining than several others whose aim is to guide, not to constrain, and whose object is to ensure a certain consistency in the decisions made by the host of public servants called upon to deal with particular cases on a daily basis. These are internal policies that the sound administration of a public agency not only allows, but requires.

Decision 28068A Full Text of Decision 28068A

Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0681.96

Decision 30336 Full Text of Decision 30336

Claimant never received the two letters of penalties. Where the claimant has no opportunity to modify his conduct following a reported first offence, there can be little justification for a policy which is applied so as to increase the rate of penalty on discovery of a 2nd occasion of misconduct.

Decision 29211 Full Text of Decision 29211

Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0708.95

Decision 29102 Full Text of Decision 29102

Following a first offense and a 100% penalty of $702, claimant was advised by letter that it would be to his advantage to communicate further transgressions but did not respond. Subsequently, 6 other false statements were discovered and a 200% penalty was imposed ($4,176). Upheld by Board and Umpire.

Decision 26519 Full Text of Decision 26519

Penalty of $3500 and overpayment of $323. Reference to the CEIC policy of 100% of the rate, and for repeat offences, 200% and 300%. Automatic application regardless of the overpayment amount. Administratively convenient but fails to consider specific cases. Exclusive authority.

Decision 24742 Full Text of Decision 24742

Based on the Insurance Services Policy Manual the claimant asserts that there is no proof on file of him being a repeat offender. According to section 33, the Commission may impose on the claimant a penalty equal to 2 and even 3 times his weekly benefit rate whether or not he is a repeat offender.

Decision 21413 Full Text of Decision 21413

Commission's policy: 100% of rate for a first offence, 200% for repeat. The Commission exceeded its discretionary power in deciding ahead of time what penalty was to be imposed. Can we adopt a rigid formula that does not take into account the particular circumstances of each case? I doubt this.