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 05:42, 28 October 2016
, 05:42, 28 October 2016→1. Appealing a Decision to Impose a Penalty
Desy Wahyuni (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
If the Commission imposes a '''penalty under s 38''' (or s 39 in the case of employers), '''a client should be advised to appeal''' in all but the clearest of circumstances. Regardless of what the Commission says, it has the burden of proving that the claimant knew that the statement was false or misleading at the time it was made. If the claimant has a reasonable explanation (e.g. confusion regarding the intent of the question), the appeal should be allowed. | If the Commission imposes a '''penalty under s 38''' (or s 39 in the case of employers), '''a client should be advised to appeal''' in all but the clearest of circumstances. Regardless of what the Commission says, it has the burden of proving that the claimant knew that the statement was false or misleading at the time it was made. If the claimant has a reasonable explanation (e.g. confusion regarding the intent of the question), the appeal should be allowed. | ||
'''NOTE:''' The Commission cannot impose a penalty under ss 38 or 39 if 36 months have elapsed since the act or omission. For a case that discusses when time limits start to run see ''Attorney General of Canada v Kos'', 2005 FCA 319. The key issue here was whether file notes by an insurance officer constituted a “decision” that triggered the time limit. The court ruled that it did not, in part because the notes were not communicated to the claimant. | :'''NOTE:''' The Commission cannot impose a penalty under ss 38 or 39 if 36 months have elapsed since the act or omission. For a case that discusses when time limits start to run see ''Attorney General of Canada v Kos'', 2005 FCA 319. The key issue here was whether file notes by an insurance officer constituted a “decision” that triggered the time limit. The court ruled that it did not, in part because the notes were not communicated to the claimant. | ||
=== 2. Appealing the Amount of a Penalty === | === 2. Appealing the Amount of a Penalty === | ||
