Section 38 authorizes the Commission to impose a penalty "for each" act or omission enumerated in subsection 38(1). It is clear that each report card submitted by the claimant gave rise to a separate and distinct statement. The Commission is under no obligation to forgo the application of subsection 38(1) because the claimant was employed by the same employer when she made the false statements.
Courty v. C.E.I.C., [1987] 16 F.T.R. 36 (F.C.T.D.) T-713-87
Martel v. C.E.I.C., [1989] 29 F.T.R. 96 (F.C.T.D.) T-2416-87
The requirement that a false statement be made knowingly means that innocent misrepresentations are not subject to a penalty. It is necessary that the claimant or individual who made the statement knew that it was false. By allowing for the imposition of a financial penalty, the sections imply that some improper conduct has taken place, that is knowingly misrepresenting facts.
Canada (A.G.) v. Gates, [1995] 3 F.C. 17 (F.C.A.) A-600-94
Canada (A.G.) v. Purcell, [1996] 1 F.C. 644 (F.C.A.) A-694-94
Mootoo v. Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development), [2003] F.C.J. No. 724 (F.C.A.) A-438-02
Bajwa v. Canada, [2003] F.C.J. No. 1365 (F.C.A.) A-89-02
The mere fact that a legally false statement is made does not necessarily mean that it was made knowing that it was false. Neither does the repetition of a false statement make it knowingly false. There must be subjective knowledge of falsity. In other words, before a penalty can be imposed it must be determined that the claimant acted in bad faith, or in other words, dishonestly. For example, where a claimant honestly believes that he was not "working" and, in good faith gives that answer to a question which is ambiguous to him, it cannot be automatically assumed that he subjectively knew it was a false statement. It is possible for honest confusion to arise as to the meaning of the word "work".
Canada (A.G.) v. Gates, [1995] 3 F.C. 17 (F.C.A.) A-600-94
Demers v. Canada (Employment Insurance Commission), December 1, 1998 F.C.J. No. 1810 (F.C.A.) A-171-98
Moretto v. Canada (A.G.), March 24, 1998 F.C.J. No. 438 (F.C.A.) A-667-96
Mootoo v. Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development), [2003] F.C.J. No. 724 (F.C.A.) A-438-02
However, this does not mean that a claimant will be able to avoid the imposition of a penalty by merely professing lack of knowledge. Boards of Referees are required to use common sense and take into consideration objective factors in deciding whether there was subjective knowledge on the claimant's part. For example, if a claimant professes ignorance of a very obvious fact, this may lead to an inference that he or she was lying.
Canada (A.G.) v. Gates, [1995] 3 F.C. 17 (F.C.A.) A-600-94
It is not necessary that there be a general intent to deceive or mislead the Commission.
Canada (A.G.) v. Gates, [1995] 3 F.C. 17 (F.C.A.) A-600-94
[ previous | table of contents | next ]
2014-05-08