Bellil – Federal Court of Appeal states that the absence of an intent to defraud is irrelevant to whether an individual has knowingly made a false statement

An unemployed engineer spent 11 weeks in Tunisia. On his weekly Employment Insurance declarations he answered “no” to the question, was he outside Canada, and was assessed a penalty under s. 38(1) of the Employment Insurance Act for making a statement that he “knew” to be false or misleading.

De Montigny JA found that the Social Security Tribunal, Appeals Division had committed an error, which required the case to be remitted for a fresh hearing, when it had reversed the penalty on the grounds that the engineer had had no intent to defraud the system. He stated:

[T]he only requirement imposed by the legislature is that a claimant made a representation that the claimant “knew’’ was false or misleading, that is to say, with full knowledge of the facts. The absence of fraud or having integrity is irrelevant.

This decision may inform the interpretation of "knowingly" used in ITA s. 163(2) (the French versions of ss. 38(1) and 163(2) both use “sciemment.”)

Neal Armstrong. Summaries of Canada (A.G.) v. Bellil, 2017 CAF 104 under Employment Insurance Act, s. 38(1)(a) and ITA, s. 163(2).