5,483
edits
Difference between revisions of "Penalties, Violations, and Offences with Employment Insurance (8:VIII)"
From Clicklaw Wikibooks
Penalties, Violations, and Offences with Employment Insurance (8:VIII) (view source)
Revision as of 00:57, 1 June 2016
, 00:57, 1 June 2016no edit summary
Desy Wahyuni (talk | contribs) |
Desy Wahyuni (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
The SST has jurisdiction over the amount of the penalty assigned. While the amount of the penalty can also be appealed, a penalty cannot be reduced simply because the referees consider it a bit too high. However, they can reduce a penalty if the decision is unreasonable, e.g. where Commission has erred by ignoring relevant circumstances such as the claimant's ability to pay, or health problems, or where it took irrelevant circumstances into account. It is not necessary to prove that the Commission was unfair, just that it was not made aware ofall the relevant circumstances. | The SST has jurisdiction over the amount of the penalty assigned. While the amount of the penalty can also be appealed, a penalty cannot be reduced simply because the referees consider it a bit too high. However, they can reduce a penalty if the decision is unreasonable, e.g. where Commission has erred by ignoring relevant circumstances such as the claimant's ability to pay, or health problems, or where it took irrelevant circumstances into account. It is not necessary to prove that the Commission was unfair, just that it was not made aware ofall the relevant circumstances. | ||
== C. The Violation System | == C. The Violation System == | ||
Section 7.1 of the ''EI Act'' outlines the increased qualifying requirements for claimants who are found to have committed fraud after June 30, 1996. These requirements increase depending on how the violation is classified (minor, serious, or very serious). If the Commission chooses to simply issue a warning letter (possibly accompanied by a fine), then as per s 7.1(5), no such classification is made. | Section 7.1 of the ''EI Act'' outlines the increased qualifying requirements for claimants who are found to have committed fraud after June 30, 1996. These requirements increase depending on how the violation is classified (minor, serious, or very serious). If the Commission chooses to simply issue a warning letter (possibly accompanied by a fine), then as per s 7.1(5), no such classification is made. | ||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
'''Section 7.1(1) Table''' | '''Section 7.1(1) Table''' | ||
8- | {| class="wikitable" | ||
! Regional Rate Of Unemployment | |||
! colspan="4" | Violation Severity | |||
|- | |||
| | |||
| '''Minor''' | |||
| '''Serious''' | |||
| '''Very Serious''' | |||
| '''Subsequent''' | |||
|- | |||
| '''6.0% and under''' | |||
| 875 | |||
| 1050 | |||
| 1225 | |||
| 1400 | |||
|- | |||
| '''over 6.0% to 7.0%''' | |||
| 831 | |||
| 998 | |||
| 1164 | |||
| 1330 | |||
|- | |||
| '''over 7.0% to 8.0%''' | |||
| 788 | |||
| 945 | |||
| 103 | |||
| 1260 | |||
|- | |||
| '''over 8.0% to 9.0%''' | |||
| 744 | |||
| 893 | |||
| 1041 | |||
| 1190 | |||
|- | |||
| '''over 9.0% to 10.0%''' | |||
| 700 | |||
| 840 | |||
| 980 | |||
| 1120 | |||
|- | |||
| '''over 10.0% to 11.0%''' | |||
| 656 | |||
| 788 | |||
| 919 | |||
| 1050 | |||
|- | |||
| '''over 11.0% to 12.0%''' | |||
| 613 | |||
| 735 | |||
| 858 | |||
| 980 | |||
|- | |||
| '''over 12.0% to 13.0%''' | |||
| 569 | |||
| 683 | |||
| 796 | |||
| 910 | |||
|- | |||
| '''over 13.0%''' | |||
| 525 | |||
| 630 | |||
| 735 | |||
| 840 | |||
|} | |||
In the case of new entrants or re-entrants that have committed a violation in the 260 weeks prior to making their initial claim, the number of hours required to qualify is even higher: | |||
*a) '''minor violation:''' the number of required hours is increased to 1,138 hours; | |||
*b) '''serious violation:''' the number of required hours is increased to 1,365 hours; | |||
*c) '''very serious violation:''' the number required is increased to 1,400 hours. | |||
In each of the above scenarios, and in the case of persons who are not new or re-entrants, the Commission may now apply the increased hours rule to a claimant’s next '''two''' claims, (if made over the course of the next 260 weeks). This makes it critical to appeal any penalty orviolation decision. | |||
'''NOTE:''' Violations should always be appealed. | |||
=== 2. Issuing Violations === | |||
Pursuant to s 7.1(4), the Commission may issue a violation notice for: | |||
*a) one or more penalties imposed under ss 38, 39, 41.1 or 65.1 as a result of acts or omissions mentioned in ss 38, 39 or 65.1; | |||
*b) a finding of guilt for an offence under ss 135 or 136; or | |||
*c) a finding of guilt of one or more offences under the ''Criminal Code'' as a result of acts or omissions relating to the application of the ''EI Act''. | |||
=== 3. Classifying Violations === | |||
If a violation is found to have occurred, as determined by the above criteria, it must be classified for purposes of the '''s 7.1(1) Table''', and also for new and re-entrants. The ''EI Act'' classifies violations in the following manner under s 7.1(5)(a): | |||
*a) Minor violation: if the value of the violation is less than $1,000; | |||
*b) Serious violation: if the value of the violation is less than $5,000 (but more than $1,000), it is a serious violation; | |||
*c) Very serious violation: if the value of the violation is over $5,000, it is a very serious violation. | |||
Under s 7.1(6), the value of a violation for purposes of classification is the amount of overpayment of benefits resulting from acts on which the violation is based. If the claimant is disqualified or disentitled, the value is the total amount of benefits he or she would have collected, divided by two. | |||
