Summary Search Results...


Decision 77016 Full Text of Decision 77016

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
penalties applicability
Summary:

The claimant was drawing benefits while employed. Upon discovering this, the Commission sought payback of the benefits and imposed a penalty (this was the second incident of improper reporting) and a Notice of Violation was issued. The Commission correctly concluded the undeclared wages constituted earnings and were properly allocated in accordance with Regulations 35 and 36. The Board found out that the claimant did knowingly make a false statement in his declaration. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed by the Umpire.


Decision 63197 Full Text of Decision 63197

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
penalties applicability
Summary:

The claimant was imposed an overpayment, a penalty and issued a notice of violation for not declaring his earnings from Golden Mile Motors Limited. The claimant states that he did not recall any of these circumstances due to head injuries suffered subsequent to the event. The Umpire agrees with the Commission's position that since the events took place before the alleged head injury, it cannot be suggested the injury precluded a conscious act. He concluded that the BOR did not err in fact or in law in upholding the decisions of the Commission.


Decision 55896 Full Text of Decision 55896

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
penalties applicability
Summary:

The fact that the claimant was going through a difficult period in regards to her health situation and that she was stressed by her situation of single mother cannot excuse her from hiding her employment and earnings. The purpose of the employment insurance system is to provide assistance for those who are unemployed, not to supplement one's employment income during difficult times.


Decision A-0171.98 Full Text of Decision A-0171.98

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
penalties applicability
Summary:

FCA found that a penalty could be imposed under section 33(1) of the Act only if the claimant had "knowingly" made a false or misleading statement. This meant that a penalty could not be imposed on a claimant who had made a false statement unless it was deemed that the claimant had acted in bad faith, i.e. dishonestly, in that case.

other summary
Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
penalties knowingly
penalties misrepresentation
penalties charter

Decision 40075 Full Text of Decision 40075

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
penalties applicability
Summary:

Penalty imposed for making 20 false or misleading statements. BOR reversed this decision. According to the evidence, the claimant knew he had to declare his income from his business, but did not do so because he and his family needed money. Umpire found that the UI Program was not designed finance individuals in financial difficulties. BOR thus erred in refusing to accept the documentary evidence on the record, and thereby rendered a decision made in perverse or capricious manner without regard for the material before it.

other summary
Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
penalties knowingly
board of referees errors in law weight of statements
penalties weeks of unemployment

Decision 39458 Full Text of Decision 39458

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
penalties applicability
Summary:

In order for a penalty to be imposed under section 33 of the UI Act, it must be shown that a claimant intended to make a false and misleading statement. In other words, it is essential that the false statement was made knowingly. This requirement means that innocent misrepresentations are not subject to a penalty.

other summary
Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
penalties charter

Decision 30741 Full Text of Decision 30741

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
penalties applicability
Summary:

This involves an error in law in believing that a penalty cannot be imposed on a claimant when legal action has been taken against the employer. The scheme of the Act contains no provision whereby fraud on the part of the employer discounts the employee's own dishonesty.


Decision 26489 Full Text of Decision 26489

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
penalties applicability
Summary:

The claimant argues that a penalty cannot be assessed if criminal proceedings have been instituted against the employer. Having examined ss. 33(1), (2) and (3), I find it obvious that proceedings against the employer cannot exempt a claimant from a penalty for false statements.


Decision 26376 Full Text of Decision 26376

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
penalties applicability
Summary:

She said no when specifically asked whether she had been out of Canada. There was no entrapment for the claimant as suggested by counsel since a truthful reply was expected. She chose not to do so. It is immaterial whether the Insurance Officer knew the answer before asking the question.

other summary
Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
availability for work absences from home out of canada

Decision 24384 Full Text of Decision 24384

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
penalties applicability
Summary:

A review of the main question at issue (in business on his own) is not sufficient to conclude by inference (after having decided that the claimant was unemployed) that he had not made false statements. That is another issue the Board had to deal with.

other summary
Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
penalties proof
board of referees errors in law burden of proof
Date modified: