IN THE MATTER of the EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
- and -
IN THE MATTER of a claim by
H.X.
- and -
IN THE MATTER of an appeal to an Umpire by the claimant from a decision by the Board of Referees given on December 10, 2009 at Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island
GERALD T.G. SENIUK, Umpire
This is an appeal by the claimant from a decision of the Board of Referees which upheld the Commission's imposition of a penalty pursuant to section 38 of the Employment Insurance Act. The claimant also appealed the Notice of Violation issued pursuant to section 7.1 of the Act.
A.B., with the Department of Justice Canada, appeared for the Commission. Ms. H.X. appeared in person. There is no need to review the appeal in full as the Commission concedes the claimant's appeal.
There were certain questions that arose in my mind, and the information in the docket did not provide obvious answers. Mr. A.B. undertook to make further inquiry as to these matters. As a result of his inquiries, Mr. A.B. submitted a letter to the Office of the Umpire, copied to Ms. H.X., stating in part the following:
Please accept this letter as the Commission's post-hearing submission as requested by Umpire Seniuk on September 13, 2010.
The Commission is the Respondent in this matter. I have performed an in-depth review of this file with my client. As a result of our review, the Commission hereby consents to the Claimant's appeal.
The Claimant's false statements all arose in the same time period with the same employer. The Claimant failed to report her Atlantic Baptist Homes earnings from July to December 2006. In the particular circumstances of this case, all the failures to report should have resulted in one warning (s. 41.1. of the Act and one unclassified violation (s. 7.1(4)(a) of the Act). There should be no monetary penalty and no subsequent violation in this case.
We respectfully request that the Umpire allow the Claimant's appeal and order as follows: all of the Claimant's failure to report earnings from July to December 2006 shall result in one warning under s. 41.1 of the Act and one unclassified violation under s. 7.1(4)(a) of the Act.
Ms. H.X. has attempted for some time and in different official proceedings to have this matter either explained properly to her or, as she contended throughout, corrected. Thanks to Mr. A.B.'s diligence in this matter, Ms. H.X.'s long sojourn through the employment insurance system as regards this matter can now come to an end.
The appeal is allowed and it is hereby ordered that all of the claimant's failures to report earnings from July to December 2006 shall result in one warning under section 41.1 of the Employment Insurance Act and one unclassified violation under section 7.1(4)(a) of the said Act.
Gerald T.G. Seniuk
UMPIRE
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
October 7, 2010