J. F. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission

J. F. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission

The Tribunal held that the Commission was entitled to reconsider within 72 months because false ROEs existed, but the claimant's usual place of residence at the time of each interruption of earnings was Gaspésie/Les Îles not Montreal; applying the correct regional rates and CRA determinations of insurable hours, benefit periods were properly established for December 7, 2008 and December 15, 2013 but not for December 6, 2009, December 5, 2010, December 11, 2011 or December 16, 2012; furthermore, the Commission failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the claimant knowingly made false or misleading statements and therefore warnings, penalties and notices of violation could not be...

Citation
2016 SSTGDEI 156
Parties
Claimant/appellant: J. F.; Respondent: Canada Employment Insurance Commission
Court
Social Security Tribunal of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Employment Insurance Appeal / General Division Teleconference Hearing and Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Reconsideration Timeframe (s.52), Establishment of Benefit Period (s.7), Place of Residence for Regional Rate (regs.17), False or Misleading Statements and Penalties (s.38, S.41.1), Notices of Violation (s.7.1), Determination of Insurable Hours by CRA
Source Language
English
Employment Insurance Administrative Law Social Security Reconsideration Timeframe (s.52) Establishment of Benefit Period (s.7) Place of Residence for Regional Rate (regs.17) False or Misleading Statements and Penalties (s.38, S.41.1) Notices of Violation (s.7.1) +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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J. F.

Claimant/appellant

Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Insurance Appeal / General Division Teleconference Hearing and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Commission could validly reconsider claims within 72 months under s.52(5)
  2. 2 What was the claimant's usual place of residence for determining the regional unemployment rate
  3. 3 Whether the claimant accumulated sufficient insurable hours to establish benefit periods under s.7 and s.7(3) (new entrant rule)

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal held that the Commission was entitled to reconsider within 72 months because false ROEs existed, but the claimant's usual place of residence at the time of each interruption of earnings was Gaspésie/Les Îles not Montreal; applying the correct regional rates and CRA determinations of insurable hours, benefit periods were properly established for December 7, 2008 and December 15, 2013 but not for December 6, 2009, December 5, 2010, December 11, 2011 or December 16, 2012; furthermore, the Commission failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the claimant knowingly made false or misleading statements and therefore warnings, penalties and notices of violation could not be...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Benefit period established for claim effective December 7, 2008
  • Benefit period established for claim effective December 15, 2013