Decision A0044.14
Full Text of Decision A0044.14
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
violation |
|
|
Summary:
The Commission determined that the claimant had filed a false Record of Employment. This resulted in the cancellation of the claim, an overpayment, a penalty and a violation. The FCA ruled that the evidence which was before the BOR and the Umpire supported the factual finding that the claimant was never employed by the Owner of the ROE. The critical finding of fact was reasonable.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
record of employment |
|
|
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
|
|
Decision A0221.11
Full Text of Decision A0221.11
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
violation |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant worked while in receipt of EI benefits. He failed to declare earnings from this employment. The earnings were allocated in accordance with the EIR. The Commission issued a penalty and a “very serious” notice of violation. The Board allowed the appeal, without providing reasons, in respect of the penalty and notice of violation. The Commission appealed to the Umpire. The Umpire found that the only issue before him was the issue of the penalty. The Umpire failed to deal with the issue of the notice of violation and whether it was properly imposed. The FCA allowed the application for judicial review and held that the Umpire erred in failing to consider the issue of the notice of violation.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
not exercised |
|
Decision 76064
Full Text of Decision 76064
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
violation |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant filed an initial claim for benefits after advising her employer that she would not be available for school year the 2006–2007. Claimant said she was taking an unpaid leave for one year. She stated that as of August 21, 2006, she was devoting between 20 and 30 hours a week to her self-employment business. The claimant’s electronic reports show that she did not report that she was self-employed, and that she was available during the entire period. The claimant also failed to report she had left the country twice while receiving benefits. The Commission properly submits that the claimant knowingly made false or misleading statements. All of the evidence shows that it is largely a matter of credibility. The BOR properly indicated, following the evidence, that the facts in the record clearly show that the claimant could not be unaware that she was on unpaid leave granted by her employer, that she was starting up her business and that she travelled outside Canada and had to report her absences. The claimant’s appeal is therefore dismissed by the Umpire.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
misrepresentation |
|
|
Decision A0233.08
Full Text of Decision A0233.08
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
violation |
|
|
Summary:
In this case, the Commission imposed several penalties to the claimant and gave him a notice of violation for having made false statements by not declaring his business income. The issue was whether the false statements were made knowingly. The FCA indicated that once it is established that the claimant has knowingly made false statements, penalties are applicable and concluded that the claimant did not demonstrate that the Umpire erred in its decision.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Decision A0463.05
Full Text of Decision A0463.05
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
violation |
|
|
Summary:
A warning was issued to the respondent instead of the imposition of a monetary penalty as a result of a false representation made by the claimant. According to the Umpire, only a monetary penalty can trigger the application of paragraph 7.1(4)(a) of the EI Act and result in the accumulation of a violation. The Court referred to A-559-05 (Pivosan) in which the Court acknowledged that paragraph 7.1(4)(a) was poorly drafted, but held that the reference to section 41.1 in that provision led to the inescapable conclusion that a warning is to be treated as a penalty.
Decision A-0559.05
Full Text of Decision A-0559.05
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
violation |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant was imposed a warning under section 41.1 of the Act instead of a monetary penalty which triggered the issuance of a notice of violation pursuant to subparagraph 7.1(4)(a) of the Act. The FCA interpreted subparagraph 7.1.(4)(a) to include warnings provided under section 41.1 of the Act as a valid basis for the issuance of a violation by the Commission even tough this violation is not qualified.
Decision 65055
Full Text of Decision 65055
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
violation |
|
|
Summary:
As a result of reducing the penalty, the Board of Referees changed the noted violation to a minor violation. Evidence on the record shows that this was a subsequent violation and, accordingly, it could not be treated as a minor violation. The Umpire concluded that the subsequent violation precluded the action of the Board and allowed the Commission appeal.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Decision A-0396.04
Full Text of Decision A-0396.04
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
violation |
|
|
Summary:
The Court reiterated that the notice of violation pursuant to section 7.1 of the EIA provides that the amount to take into account to determine the value of the violation is the amount of the overpayment and not the penalty.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Decision A-0336.04
Full Text of Decision A-0336.04
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
violation |
|
|
Summary:
The Umpire had reclassified the violation using the amount of the penalty as a basis. The Court concluded that it is the amount of the overpayment which must be used to determine the violation pursuant to subsection 7(6) of the EI Act.
Decision A-0027.04
Full Text of Decision A-0027.04
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
violation |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant had been imposed a penalty after attempting to defraud the Commission. The Court found that the Umpire had erred in reducing the violation from serious to minor given that subsection 7.1(6) of the Act applied.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
number of hours required |
|
|
Decision 60930
Full Text of Decision 60930
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
violation |
|
|
Summary:
Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0396.04
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Decision 60689
Full Text of Decision 60689
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
violation |
|
|
Summary:
Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0336.04
Decision 56750B
Full Text of Decision 56750B
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
violation |
|
|
Summary:
Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0027.04
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
number of hours required |
|
|
Decision A-0016.03
Full Text of Decision A-0016.03
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
violation |
|
|
Summary:
The Commission withdrew its application regarding the penalty determination, while the claimant consented to judgement quashing the Umpire's decision reducing the violation. The Court restored the violation to "very serious" and dismissed the application for judicial review with respect to the reduced penalty.
Decision 52415
Full Text of Decision 52415
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
violation |
|
|
Summary:
While the BOR had maintained the Commission's decision to impose a penalty and reduced the amount of such penalty, the BOR did not have the discretionary power to nullify the notice of violation. The Law has to be applied as it was written by Parliament.
Decision A-0113.00
Full Text of Decision A-0113.00
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
violation |
|
|
Summary:
Feeling that the penalty was sufficient, BOR cancelled the notice of violation. Decision upheld by the Umpire, but overturned by the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA). There is no doubt that Parliament wanted and sought to ensure that all violations of the kind described in subsection 7.1(4) of the EIA result in an increase in the number of hours of employment required, without the Commission being able to exercise any discretion in this respect.
Decision 48865
Full Text of Decision 48865
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
violation |
|
|
Summary:
Given the extenuating circumstances, BOR decided that a penalty was sufficient and the notice of violation should be replaced with a warning. Error in law according to the Umpire. The Commission has no discretion in issuing a notice of violation if an act or omission has been knowingly made. When the intent of the law is to grant discretionary power, it does not hesitate to say so clearly by using the expression "may".
Decision 47217
Full Text of Decision 47217
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
violation |
|
|
Summary:
The BOR upheld the penalty, while reducing it, but considered that it was appropriate to issue a warning in the case of a first offence. The notice of violation was therefore cancelled. The Umpire ruled that the BOR exceeded its jurisdiction and erred in law. Once the BOR confirmed that a false or misleading statement had knowingly been made, it was outside the jurisdiction of the BOR and the Umpire to exercise discretion regarding the choice of penalty.
Decision 47116
Full Text of Decision 47116
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
violation |
|
|
Summary:
Decisions regarding a penalty and a notice of violation were appealed. In the meantime, the claimant returned to work and filed a new benefit claim after accumulating 971 insurable hours, when in fact 1,103 were needed, owing to the notice of violation. The claimant maintained that the notice of violation should be suspended because of the pending appeal. The claims were dismissed by the Umpire. The general rule is that, notwithstanding an appeal, a decision rendered must take full effect.
Decision 46921
Full Text of Decision 46921
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
violation |
|
|
Summary:
Overpayment of more than $5,000 and penalty of $8,515 that was reduced to $500. BOR decided that the severity of the notice of violation should be reduced from very serious to minor given the decrease in penalty. Error in law according to the Umpire. The legislation clearly states that the severity of the violation will be based solely on the amount of overpayment and not on the amount of penalty.
Decision 46645
Full Text of Decision 46645
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
violation |
|
|
Summary:
First notice of violation issued February 23, 1998 for undeclared earnings during the period from November 3 to 9, 1996. A subsequent notice of violation issued October 9, 1998 for the period from April 13 to 26, 1997. Claimant argued that this cannot be a subsequent violation since the second act or omission occurred before the first notice of violation. Appeal allowed by BOR, but decision overturned by the Umpire. Decided that it did not matter whether the subsequent notice of violation was for acts or omissions that had been committed before the first notice of violation was issued.
Decision 46460
Full Text of Decision 46460
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
violation |
|
|
Summary:
BOR held that in the case of a first offence, the penalty was sufficient and the Commission should have exercised its discretion by simply issuing a warning. Umpire held that the BOR erred in law and exceeded its jurisdiction. The Act does not allow a notice of very serious violation given by the Commission to be varied and replaced by a warning.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Decision 44584A
Full Text of Decision 44584A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
violation |
|
|
Summary:
While upholding the disentitlement and the penalty, the BOR maintained that the Commission had flexibility regarding whether or not to issue a notice of violation. The BOR cancelled the notice of violation, taking into consideration the specific circumstances in the case. Error of law, according to the Umpire. In accordance with the FCA decision in Dunham (A-0857.95), the Commission has no discretion regarding application of the section of the Act dealing with notices of violation.
Decision 44312
Full Text of Decision 44312
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
violation |
|
|
Summary:
BOR erred in law in making the violation equivalent in value to the penalty and not to the total benefit overpayments.
Decision A0483.09
Full Text of Decision A0483.09
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
violation |
Commission's Discretion |
|
Summary:
The claimant had made false and misleading representations to the Commission. The Commission imposed a penalty and issued a notice of violation. The claimant's penalty was reduced to $1.00 and his notice of violation was set aside by the BOR. The Umpire decided that the issuance of notices of violations was automatic following a penalty and so the BOR had no jurisdiction to entertain such issue. The FCA ruled that the automatic issuance of notices of violations is not what the EIA provides for in s. 7.1(4), the Commission has a discretion to issue a notice of violation or not, depending on the circumstances. The exercise of this discretion can be appealed to the BOR.
Decision A0372.06
Full Text of Decision A0372.06
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
violation |
Commission's Discretion |
|
Summary:
The Umpire said the claimant did make a false statement but reduced the penalty to a warning and decided that a notice of violation should not follow. The Court has said on many occasions that a Board or an Umpire's right to review a discretionary decision by the Commission is limited. The Court in this case after citing several past court decisions said that an Umpire would only be warranted in reducing the penalty if the Board failed to take new evidence into consideration and if the Board's mistake falls within the confines of subsection 115(2) of the Act. The Court also said that it is clear from subsection 7.1(4)(a) of the Act that a warning issued pursuant to section 41.1 of the Act is considered a penalty. Consequently, it concluded that the Umpire erred in law and exceeded his jurisdiction when he decided that a notice of violation should not be made.
Decision A0546.05
Full Text of Decision A0546.05
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
violation |
Date of Issuance |
|
Summary:
In this case, the notice of violation was issued on October 17, 2003, and placed in the claimant's file. It was ruled that the violation was serious. In accordance with the principles in Szczech (A-145-04), the five-year period provided for in subsection 7.1(1) began to run as of that date. It follows that the hours of insurable employment increase if the insured claimant's violation occurs within the five years preceding his initial claim for benefit. The subsection 7.1(1) increase is based on the claimant's liability for the violations, and not on the knowledge he has of the notice of violation. The Court was unable to accept the argument that the increase in the hours cannot be used against the claimant since he was not informed of the notice of violation until February 15, 2005, four days after filing his initial claim for benefit. Since the claimant did not challenge on the merits the serious violation in question, but instead chose, as in Limosi (A-534-01) to complain that he had not received the notice of violation, the Commission's decision holding him responsible for a serious violation remains in full force and effect and meets the requirements of subsection 7.1(1).
Decision 67437
Full Text of Decision 67437
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
violation |
Subsequent violation |
|
Summary:
The claimant received an initial notice of violation on June 18, 2005, for failing to report that he was out of Canada, and received a second notice of violation on October 20, 2005, for a similar infraction. The Board cannot ignore the unequivocal legislative provisions of paragraph 7.1(5) of the Act stipulating that the notice of violation received October 20, 2005 must be qualified as subsequent because the claimant had already received another notice earlier the same year.
