ML v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

ML v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

The Commission failed to prove that the Appellant knowingly provided false or misleading information; the Appellant's explanation that he did not believe short statutory-holiday absences needed to be reported was credible and consistent, so the non-monetary penalty is rescinded. On availability, applying the Faucher three-factor test the Appellant was available on March 29, 2018 and April 3, 2018 but not available from March 30 to April 2, 2018 while attending a sports tournament outside Canada; therefore benefits are disentitled for that tournament period and an overpayment remains, which only the Commission can write off.

Citation
2024 SST 1070
Parties
Appellant: M. L.; Representative: N. O.; Respondent: Canada Employment Insurance Commission
Court
Social Security Tribunal of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Employment Insurance (ei) Appeal / General Division Decision on Remand From Appeal Division (hearing in Writing)
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Availability for Work, Capable of and Available for Work, False or Misleading Information, Penalty for Misrepresentation, Overpayment Recovery, Statutory Holidays Reporting
Source Language
English
Employment Insurance Administrative Law Benefits Law Social Security Enforcement Availability for Work Capable of and Available for Work False or Misleading Information Penalty for Misrepresentation +2 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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M. L.

Appellant

N. O.

Representative

Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Insurance (ei) Appeal / General Division Decision on Remand From Appeal Division (hearing in Writing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Commission proved the Appellant knowingly provided false or misleading information on biweekly reports
  2. 2 Whether the Appellant was capable of and available for work from March 29, 2018 to April 3, 2018 and thus entitled to EI benefits
  3. 3 Whether the non-monetary penalty was properly imposed and whether overpayment should be cancelled

Ratio Decidendi

The Commission failed to prove that the Appellant knowingly provided false or misleading information; the Appellant's explanation that he did not believe short statutory-holiday absences needed to be reported was credible and consistent, so the non-monetary penalty is rescinded. On availability, applying the Faucher three-factor test the Appellant was available on March 29, 2018 and April 3, 2018 but not available from March 30 to April 2, 2018 while attending a sports tournament outside Canada; therefore benefits are disentitled for that tournament period and an overpayment remains, which only the Commission can write off.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Non-monetary penalty rescinded
  • Appellant is disentitled to EI benefits for March 30, 2018 to April 2, 2018