B. B. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission

The Board of Referees committed an error of law by equating falsity with knowledge without considering the claimant's explanation; because this legal error warrants review on correctness, the Appeal Division allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the General Division for reconsideration.

Source-derived case information.

Citation: 2015 SSTAD 1207
Parties: Appellant: B. B.; Respondent: Canada Employment Insurance Commission
Court: Social Security Tribunal of Canada
Jurisdiction: Canada
Judgment Date: 13 October 2015
Procedural Posture: Employment Insurance (ei) Appeal / Appeal Division After Leave Granted; Matter Remitted to General Division
Outcome: Appeal allowed; matter referred back to the Tribunal's General Division for reconsideration in accordance with reasons.
Legal Topics: False Representation, Penalty, Credibility Assessment, Standard of Review, Reconsideration/remittal
Source Language: english

Employment Insurance Administrative Law Social Security Law False Representation Penalty Credibility Assessment Standard of Review Reconsideration/remittal

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2

Parties

B. B.

Appellant

Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Insurance (ei) Appeal / Appeal Division After Leave Granted; Matter Remitted to General Division

Legal Issues

1 Whether the Board of Referees erred by concluding the claimant knowingly made a false representation without considering the claimant's explanation
2 Whether the Appeal Division should allow the appeal and remit the matter to the General Division for reconsideration
3 What standard of review applies to the errors alleged

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; matter referred back to the Tribunal's General Division for reconsideration in accordance with reasons.

Orders

Appeal allowed.
Matter referred back to the Tribunal's General Division for reconsideration in accordance with these reasons.

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.