Section 7.1 of the Employment Insurance Act lays down the rule that there will be an automatic increase in the number of hours of employment once an insured person commits one or more violations in the 260 weeks before making his or her claim for benefit. The Commission, the Board of Referees and the Umpire do not have any discretion in this regard.
Canada (A.G.) v. Geoffroy, April 4, 2001, F.C.J. No. 545 (F.C.A.) A-113-00
Canada (A.G.) v. Kaur, 2007 FCA 287 A-372-06
Section 41.1 of the Employment Insurance Act empowers the Commission to issue a warning instead of setting the amount of a penalty. Subparagraph 7.1(4)(a) states that a person accumulates a violation if the Commission issues a notice of violation to a person where a penalty is imposed under, among others, section 41.1. Paragraph 7.1(4)(a) can only mean that a warning is a penalty for its purposes, albeit not a monetary penalty. Paragraph 7.1(4)(a) may be poorly drafted but interpreted in context, it can only mean that a warning is a penalty for its purposes, albeit not a monetary penalty.
Canada (A.G.) v. Geoffroy, [2001] F.C.J. No. 545 (F.C.A.) A-113-00
Canada (A.G.) v. Gauley, [2002] F.C.J. No. 815 (F.C.A.) A-353-01
Canada (A.G.) v. Maxwell, 2006 FCA 371 A-463-05
Canada (A.G.) v. Piovesan, [2006] F.C.J. No. 1080 (F.C.A.) A-559-05
Canada (A.G.) v. Kaur, 2007 FCA 287 A-372-06
The administrative penalty referred to in section 7.1 of the Employment Insurance Act is automatic. It originates and derives from a violation of the Act. In the case of false statements, the violation exists once the incorrect statement is made. After that point, the claimant becomes responsible for the action and the section 7.1 violation takes effect. The notice of violation referred to in subsection 7.1(4) is merely the procedural means by which the claimant is informed of the alleged violation.
Canada (A.G.) v. Limosi, [2003] F.C.J. No. 733 (F.C.A.) A-534-01
A claimant "accumulates a violation" when a notice of violation is issued. Thus, the issue of a notice not only is a condition precedent to a claimant's being required to have additional insurable hours in order to be eligible for benefits, but also determines the date when the 260-week period commences. To conclude that the period when additional hours must be acquired runs from the date when a violation occurred would mean that a person who managed to conceal their misrepresentations, and was not assessed a penalty and issued with a notice of violation until three years after the violation, would only have to accumulate additional insurable hours for the next two years. This would be contrary to Parliament's intention to prescribe a five-year period prior to a claim within which a claimant requires additional hours.
Canada (A.G.) v. Szczech, [2004] F.C.J. No. 1809 (F.C.A.) A-145-04
The legislation does not confer discretion on either the Board of Referees or an Umpire to suspend an extra hours penalty imposed by the Commission pending the determination of an appeal against the penalty itself. Given that there are certain circumstances listed in the legislation where a decision of the Commission may be stayed pending an appeal, a general power to suspend or stay a penalty cannot be implied.
Canada (A.G.) v. Petryna, [2002] F.C.J. No. 131 (F.C.A.) A-773-00
[ previous | table of contents ]
2010-06-18