5,109
edits
Difference between revisions of "Penalties, Violations, and Offences with Employment Insurance (8:VIII)"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Penalties, Violations, and Offences with Employment Insurance (8:VIII) (view source)
Revision as of 21:20, 29 December 2020
, 21:20, 29 December 2020no edit summary
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{REVIEWED LSLAP | date= July, | {{REVIEWED LSLAP | date= July 3, 2020}} | ||
{{LSLAP Manual TOC|expanded = EI}} | {{LSLAP Manual TOC|expanded = EI}} | ||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
Sections 38 and 40 of the ''EI Act'' allow the Commission to impose a penalty of up to three times the weekly rate of benefit on a claimant who '''knowingly''' makes a false or misleading representation to the Commission in relation to his or her claim for benefits. The claimant must actually know that the statement is false or misleading, and the onus of proving this is on the Commission. | Sections 38 and 40 of the ''EI Act'' allow the Commission to impose a penalty of up to three times the weekly rate of benefit on a claimant who '''knowingly''' makes a false or misleading representation to the Commission in relation to his or her claim for benefits. The claimant must actually know that the statement is false or misleading, and the onus of proving this is on the Commission. | ||
The court applies a subjective knowledge test to decide whether the claimant intended to make false statements to the commission. Following ''Canada v Gates'' (1995), 125 D.L.R. (4th) 348, the Court in ''David Moretto v AG Canada'', [1998] F.C.J. No. 438, confirmed that even if a claimant’s statement is found to be false, no penalty should be levied unless the finder of fact is | The court applies a subjective knowledge test to decide whether the claimant intended to make false statements to the commission. Following ''Canada v Gates'' (1995), 125 D.L.R. (4th) 348, the Court in ''David Moretto v AG Canada'', [1998] F.C.J. No. 438, confirmed that even if a claimant’s statement is found to be false, no penalty should be levied unless the finder of fact is satisfied that the claimant “subjectively knew” the statement was false. It is not enough to say that they should have known, or should have asked someone, or that a reasonable person would have known. | ||
== B. Types of Penalties == | == B. Types of Penalties == | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
Types of penalties include warning letters, penalties, monetary penalties, prosecutions, and violations (discussed below). Most often, the Commission chooses to issue a monetary penalty (a fine). For relatively minor cases, they may issue a warning letter. | Types of penalties include warning letters, penalties, monetary penalties, prosecutions, and violations (discussed below). Most often, the Commission chooses to issue a monetary penalty (a fine). For relatively minor cases, they may issue a warning letter. | ||
Alternatively, a claimant could be prosecuted criminally (summarily). Section 135(3) of the ''EI Act'' sets the minimum fine at $200 for fraud | Alternatively, a claimant could be prosecuted criminally (summarily). Section 135(3) of the ''EI Act'' sets the minimum fine at $200 for fraud relating to a person’s employment and Record of Employment. The maximum fine is $5,000 and where appropriate, twice the amount of benefits falsely obtained, or the fine plus imprisonment for a term of up to six months (s 135(3)). In practice, criminal court cases are very rare, even when a claimant asks to be prosecuted. The Commission need only write a decision letter to the claimant to impose a very large penalty, which is much simpler than proceeding with a court case, and the standard of proof is much higher in a criminal court than for the Commission | ||
=== 1. Appealing a Decision to Impose a Penalty === | === 1. Appealing a Decision to Impose a Penalty === | ||