Difference between revisions of "Penalties, Violations, and Offences with Employment Insurance (8:VIII)"

Jump to navigation Jump to search
no edit summary
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{REVIEWED LSLAP | date= August 1, 2023}}
{{REVIEWED LSLAP | date= August 8, 2024}}
{{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 rate of weekly benefits on a claimant who '''knowingly''' makes a false or misleading representation to the Commission in relation to their 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 rate of weekly benefits on a claimant who '''knowingly''' makes a false or misleading representation to the Commission in relation to their 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 [https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/1995/1995canlii3601/1995canlii3601.html?autocompleteStr=Canada%20v%20Gates%20(1995)%2C%20125%20D.L.R.%20(4th)%20348&autocompletePos=1 ''Canada v Gates (1995)'', 125 D.L.R. (4th) 348], the Court in [https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/1998/1998canlii7566/1998canlii7566.html?autocompleteStr=moretto%20v&autocompletePos=8 ''David Moretto v AG Canada'', [1998<nowiki>]</nowiki> 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.
The court applies a subjective knowledge test to decide whether the claimant intended to make false statements to the commission. The Court in [https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/1998/1998canlii7566/1998canlii7566.html?autocompleteStr=moretto%20v&autocompletePos=8 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 that a reasonable person would have known.


== B. Types of Penalties ==
== B. Types of Penalties ==
5,604

edits

Navigation menu