M. A. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission

M. A. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission

The Tribunal accepted the claimant’s contemporaneous hours‑worked evidence showing he was employed in Cold Lake during the period the Commission overpaid EI and found that a third party (the claimant’s cousin) fraudulently caused the overpayments. On the balance of probabilities the claimant did not know or consent to the fraud and therefore did not knowingly misrepresent his employment; accordingly the Commission’s imposition of a penalty under s.38 and a notice of violation under s.7.1 was not warranted and the appeal is allowed.

Citation
2017 SSTGDEI 41
Parties
Claimant: M. A.; Employer: R. C.; Employer: S. C.
Court
Social Security Tribunal of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Employment Insurance Appeal to Social Security Tribunal General Division / Decision Following Hearings and Reconsideration
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Misrepresentation, Penalty Under S.38 EI Act, Notice of Violation S.7.1 EI Act, Voluntary Leaving/just Cause S.29 30 EI Act, Third‑party Fraud, Evidentiary Burden and Credibility
Source Language
English
Employment Insurance Administrative Law Criminal Fraud/identity Fraud Misrepresentation Penalty Under S.38 EI Act Notice of Violation S.7.1 EI Act Voluntary Leaving/just Cause S.29 30 EI Act Third‑party Fraud +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 6 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M. A.

Claimant

R. C.

Employer

S. C.

Employer

Procedural Posture

Employment Insurance Appeal to Social Security Tribunal General Division / Decision Following Hearings and Reconsideration

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant knowingly made a false or misleading representation to the Commission for the purpose of imposing a penalty under s.38 EI Act
  2. 2 Whether a very serious violation should be imposed under s.7.1 EI Act
  3. 3 Whether the claimant had just cause for voluntarily leaving employment under ss.29 and 30 EI Act

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal accepted the claimant’s contemporaneous hours‑worked evidence showing he was employed in Cold Lake during the period the Commission overpaid EI and found that a third party (the claimant’s cousin) fraudulently caused the overpayments. On the balance of probabilities the claimant did not know or consent to the fraud and therefore did not knowingly misrepresent his employment; accordingly the Commission’s imposition of a penalty under s.38 and a notice of violation under s.7.1 was not warranted and the appeal is allowed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Penalty imposed under section 38 of the Employment Insurance Act set aside
  • Notice of Violation under section 7.1 of the Employment Insurance Act set aside