ML v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

ML v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

The Commission had a reasonable basis to extend reconsideration to 72 months; the ROE from the numbered company was found to contain false information and the claimant did not credibly prove she earned the hours listed, leaving only 480 valid hours and thus failing to meet the 600‑hour threshold for special benefits; the claimant knowingly made four false representations so a penalty was authorized, and although the Commission erred in part of its discretionary analysis, substituting the Tribunal's discretion results in a warning as the appropriate sanction.

Citation
2020 SST 1223
Parties
Appellant/claimant: M. L.; Respondent: Canada Employment Insurance Commission
Court
Social Security Tribunal of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Employment Insurance Appeal / General Division Appeal to Social Security Tribunal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Reconsideration Period Extension, Fraudulent Record of Employment (roe), Insurable Hours, Non Monetary Penalty (warning), Overpayment Recovery, Knowingly Providing False or Misleading Information
Source Language
English
Employment Insurance Administrative Law Social Security Integrity Reconsideration Period Extension Fraudulent Record of Employment (roe) Insurable Hours Non Monetary Penalty (warning) Overpayment Recovery +1 more

Case Brief

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 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M. L.

Appellant/claimant

Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Insurance Appeal / General Division Appeal to Social Security Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Can the Commission extend reconsideration from 36 to 72 months?
  2. 2 Does the ROE from the numbered company contain false information?
  3. 3 Has the claimant worked sufficient insurable hours to qualify for special benefits?

Ratio Decidendi

The Commission had a reasonable basis to extend reconsideration to 72 months; the ROE from the numbered company was found to contain false information and the claimant did not credibly prove she earned the hours listed, leaving only 480 valid hours and thus failing to meet the 600‑hour threshold for special benefits; the claimant knowingly made four false representations so a penalty was authorized, and although the Commission erred in part of its discretionary analysis, substituting the Tribunal's discretion results in a warning as the appropriate sanction.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Benefit period was not validly established; claimant must repay overpaid EI special benefits
  • Non-monetary penalty of a warning is imposed (substituted decision)