LC v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

LC v Canada Employment Insurance Commission Collection Employment Insurance (EI) Decision date 2020-05-25 Neutral citation 2020 SST 1042 Reference number GE-20-1004 Member Angela Ryan Bourgeois Division General Division Decision Appeal allowed Related decisions SST - L. C. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission - 2019 SST 1602 - 2019-12-04 - General Division SST - LC v Canada Employment Insurance Commission - 2020 SST 1041 - 2020-05-25 - General Division SST - LC v Canada Employment Insurance Commission - 2020 SST 246 - 2020-03-20 - Appeal Division SST - LC v Canada Employment Insurance Commission - 2020 SST 250 - 2020-03-20 - Appeal Division Decision Content On this page Decision Overview Issues Analysis Conclusion Decision [1] I am allowing the appeal. The Canada Employment Insurance Commission (Commission) has not provenFootnote 1 that the Appellant (Claimant) knowingly provided false or misleading information, so it was not entitled to impose a penalty. Because there is no penalty, the Commission cannot issue a notice of violation. Both the penalty and the notice of violation are removed. Overview [2] To be paid employment insurance benefits (benefits), claimants complete online claim reports. The reports ask a series of questions. The answers help the Commission decide a claimant’s entitlement to benefits. [3] The Commission reviewed the Claimant’s answers about earnings and why he stopped working. The Commission decided the Claimant knowingly provided false or misleading information when he reported that he did not have earnings, and the reason he stopped working. As a result, the Commission imposed a monetary penalty and issued a notice violation.Footnote 2 [4] The Claimant is appealing the penalty and notice of violation.Footnote 3 Besides these two issues, the Commission provided written submissions about an allocation of earnings. Since the Claimant is not appealing that issue, and I do not have a reconsideration decision about the allocation of earnings before me, I will not be making a finding on the allocation issue.Footnote 4 Issues [5] I have to decide: if the Commission has proven the Claimant knowingly provided false or misleading information on his claim reports; and if the Commission was allowed to issue a notice of violation. Analysis [6] The Commission may impose a penalty for each false or misleading statement knowingly made by the Claimant. It is not relevant whether the Claimant intended to defraud or deceive the Commission when deciding whether he is subject to a penalty.Footnote 5 Did the Claimant knowingly provide false or misleading information? [7] To impose a penalty, the Commission has to prove that the Claimant provided information that he knew was false or misleading.Footnote 6 As a matter of fairness, the Commission has to provide evidence of the actual questions it asked the Claimant and the answers the Claimant gave.Footnote 7 Evidence of unspecified admissions on the part of the Claimant does not prove what questions the Claimant was asked or what answers he gave.Footnote 8 [8] If the evidence clearly shows the questions were simple and the Claimant answered incorrectly, I can infer that the Claimant knew the information was false or misleading. In that case, the burden shifts to the Claimant to explain why he gave incorrect answers and show that he did not do it knowingly.Footnote 9 Misrepresented earnings [9] The Commission says the Claimant misrepresented his earnings that he received during the week of April 8, 2018.Footnote 10 [10] The Commission has not provided a copy of the report for the week of April 8, 2019. This means I do not know the actual question asked and answer given. The Claimant’s agreement to the allocation of earnings is not enough to prove that he misrepresented his earnings. As such, I find the Commission has not proven the Claimant knowingly made a false or misleading statement about his earnings. Reasons he stopped working [11] The Commission says the Claimant misrepresented the reasons he stopped working. [12] The questions asked on the report and answers given are: Have you stopped working for any employer during the period of this report? Yes Have you stopped working for a reason other than shortage of work, end of contract, end of season or on-call work? No [13] The Commission says the Claimant knowingly made a false or misleading statement when he said he had not stopped working for a reason other than shortage of work, end or contract, end of season or on-call work. The Commission says he should have answered yes because he either quit his job by asking for a layoff or was dismissed for not showing up for work. [14] I agree with the Commission that the Claimant made a false or misleading statement by answering no to this question. This is because the employer told the Commission that it did not lay off the Claimant. The employer says it dismissed the Claimant after he did not show up for work for two days. His record of employment shows he was dismissed. [15] The Claimant says he thought his employer had laid him off so he did not knowingly provide false or misleading information. The Claimant worked at a camp in Alberta. He says he could not continue working because he did not have medication for his arthritic pain, which had flared. He asked his supervisor for a layoff. His supervisor said no but referred him to a safety person. He says the safety person agreed to his layoff. The Claimant is adamant he thought he was laid off. Otherwise, he would not have left the camp. [16] The Commission says the Claimant knew that he had not been laid off because a safety person does not have the authority to lay off employees. [17] However, having considered all the evidence, I find it is more likely the Claimant did not knowingly provide false or misleading information because he genuinely believed the employer had laid him off. This is why: Although his statements about his earnings have not been consistent, his story about why and how he left camp has been constant. He told the same story to the Commission, his daughter, his union representative and his ex-wife. It is understandable for the Claimant to believe his employer would give him a “medical layoff” for his arthritis as other employers have laid him off for similar circumstances.Footnote 11 The Claimant does not complete his own reports because he is illiterate. According to his ex-wife, he did not go to elementary school, and cannot sign his name. He calls his teenage daughter in Newfoundland with information and she completes his reports on his behalf. The Claimant could not read his record of employment so he could not have known it said the employer dismissed him. His daughter completed the claim reports based on the Claimant’s misunderstanding of the situation. As layoffs are common in camp jobs, there was no reason for his daughter to question her father’s belief that the employer had laid him off. As such, it was understandable that she did not look at his record of employment. [18] Since the Claimant genuinely believed he had been laid off, I find he did not knowingly provide false or misleading information about why he stopped working. No Penalty [19] Since the Commission has not proven the Claimant knowingly made false or misleading statements, the Commission was not entitled to impose a penalty. This means the penalty is removed. Was the Commission allowed to issue a notice of violation? [20] A violation increases the number of hours of insurable employment that the Claimant needs to qualify for benefits. The Commission can only issue a notice of violation when there is a penalty.Footnote 12 [21] Since there is no penalty, the Commission cannot issue a notice of violation. Conclusion [22] The Claimant is not subject to a penalty or violation. The appeal is allowed. Heard on: May 11, 2020 Method of proceeding: Teleconference Appearances: L. B. C., Representative for the Appellant Footnotes Footnote 1 The Commission has to prove this on a balance of probabilities, which means it is more likely than not. Footnote 2 The notice of violation means the Claimant has to work more hours of insurable employment to qualify for benefits. Footnote 3 As confirmed by his representative at the hearing. Footnote 4 I only have jurisdiction to decide matters where the Commission has made a reconsideration decision. Footnote 5 Canada (Attorney General) v Miller, 2002 FCA 24. Footnote 6 Employment Insurance Act, s. 38; Bajwa v Canada, 2003 FCA 341; the Commission has to prove this on a balance of probabilities, which means it is more likely than not. Footnote 7 Caverly v Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development), 2002 FCA 92 Footnote 8 Badra v Canada (Attorney General), 2002 FCA 140. Footnote 9 Nangle v Canada (Attorney General), 2003 FCA 210. Footnote 10 Decision letter on page GD3-38 and Record of Decision on page GD3-2. Footnote 11 See Investigation Information Sheet, page GD3-35, second full paragraph. Footnote 12 S 7.1 of the Employment Insurance Act.