Date: 20050506
Docket: A-396-04
Citation: 2005 FCA 164
CORAM: ROTHSTEIN J.A.
NOËL J.A.
MALONE J.A.
BETWEEN:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Applicant
and
ROSELYN S. LINGAM
Respondent
Heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on May 3, 2005.
Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on May 6, 2005.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: NOËL J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: ROTHSTEIN J.A.
MALONE J.A.
Date: 20050506
Docket: A-396-04
Citation: 2005 FCA 164
CORAM: ROTHSTEIN J.A.
NOËL J.A.
MALONE J.A.
BETWEEN:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Applicant
and
ROSELYN S. LINGAM
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
NOËL J.A.
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of an Umpire who held that seven false declarations made by Roselyn S. Lingam in claiming benefits under the Employment Insurance Act (the Act) were to be treated as one continuing violation and who reduced the penalty levied against her. The Umpire also modified the notice of violation which had been issued to the claimant under the Act.
Background
[2] The claimant applied for benefits on May 17, 2000 and began to receive benefits. On August 21, 2002, a representative from Integrated Business Analysts Inc. advised the Commission that the claimant had worked for the company between July 17, 2000 and November 8, 2000. The claimant indicated that she was not employed during each weekly benefit period since she was unsuccessful in generating any earnings pursuant to her employment with Integrated Business Analysis.
[3] On March 1, 2003, the Commission notified the claimant that it had determined that she was a full time sales representative from July 17, 2000 to October 21, 2000 and imposed a penalty of $2,843 for seven false representations made by her during her benefit period. On October 20, 2003, the Board of Referees dismissed Ms. Lingam's appeal, but adjusted the penalty from $2,843 to $2,430, as it determined that one of the representations was not false.
[4] On appeal, the Umpire confirmed that the claimant was employed during the relevant period and that an overpayment of benefits of $4,455 was incurred. He concluded that the Board's finding that the claimant, with knowledge, made a series of false representations could not be challenged.
[5] However, he did find that the Commission failed to take into account the fact that the representations made by the claimant were all made while she worked for the same employer and should, therefore, be considered as one continuing violation rather than several separate violations under section 38 of the Act. Accordingly, he found the penalty unreasonably harsh and reduced it to $500. He also reduced Ms. Lingam's "serious notice of violation" to a "minor notice of violation"pursuant to section 7.1 of the Act.
[6] The statutory provisions relied upon by the Umpire provide respectively:
|
Penalty for claimants, etc.
38. (1) The Commission may impose on a claimant, or any other person acting for a claimant, a penalty for each of the following acts or omissions if the Commission becomes aware of facts that in its opinion establish that the claimant or other person has
(a) in relation to a claim for benefits, made a representation that the claimant or other person knew was false or misleading;
(b) being required under this Act or the regulations to provide information, provided information or made a representation that the claimant or other person knew was false or misleading;
(c) knowingly failed to declare to the Commission all or some of the claimant's earnings for a period determined under the regulations for which the claimant claimed benefits;
(d) made a claim or declaration that the claimant or other person knew was false or misleading because of the non-disclosure of facts;
(e) being the payee of a special warrant, knowingly negotiated or attempted to negotiate it for benefits to which the claimant was not entitled;
(f) knowingly failed to return a special warrant or the amount of the warrant or any excess amount, as required by section 44;
(g) imported or exported a document issued by the Commission, or had it imported or exported, for the purpose of defrauding or deceiving the Commission; or
(h) participated in, assented to or acquiesced in an act or omission mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (g).
38(2) Maximum penalty
(2) The Commission may set the amount of the penalty for each act or omission at not more than
(a) three times the claimant's rate of weekly benefits;
|
Pénalité_: prestataire
38. (1) Lorsqu'elle prend connaissance de faits qui, à son avis, démontrent que le prestataire ou une personne agissant pour son compte a perpétré l'un des actes délictueux suivants, la Commission peut lui infliger une pénalité pour chacun de ces actes_:
a) à l'occasion d'une demande de prestations, faire sciemment une déclaration fausse ou trompeuse;
b) étant requis en vertu de la présente loi ou des règlements de fournir des renseignements, faire une déclaration ou fournir un renseignement qu'on sait être faux ou trompeurs;
c) omettre sciemment de déclarer à la Commission tout ou partie de la rémunération reçue à l'égard de la période déterminée conformément aux règlements pour laquelle il a demandé des prestations;
d) faire une demande ou une déclaration que, en raison de la dissimulation de certains faits, l'on sait être fausse ou trompeuse;
e) sciemment négocier ou tenter de négocier un mandat spécial établi à son nom pour des prestations au bénéfice desquelles on n'est pas admissible;
f) omettre sciemment de renvoyer un mandat spécial ou d'en restituer le montant ou la partie excédentaire comme le requiert l'article 44;
g) dans l'intention de léser ou de tromper la Commission, importer ou exporter, ou faire importer ou exporter, un document délivré par elle;
h) participer, consentir ou acquiescer à la perpétration d'un acte délictueux visé à l'un ou l'autre des alinéas a) à g).
38(2) Maximum
(2) La pénalité que la Commission peut infliger pour chaque acte délictueux ne dépasse pas_:
a) soit le triple du taux de prestations hebdomadaires du prestataire;
|
|
(b) if the penalty is imposed under paragraph (1)(c),
(i) three times the amount of the deduction from the claimant's benefits under subsection 19(3), and
(ii) three times the benefits that would have been paid to the claimant for the period mentioned in that paragraph if the deduction had not been made under subsection 19(3) or the claimant had not been disentitled or disqualified from receiving benefits; or
(c) three times the maximum rate of weekly benefits in effect when the act or omission occurred, if no benefit period was established.
38(3) Determination under subsection 145(2)
(3) For greater certainty, weeks of regular benefits that are repaid as a result of an act or omission mentioned in subsection (1) are deemed to be weeks of regular benefits paid for the purposes of the application of subsection 145(2).
1996, c. 23, s. 38; 2001, c. 5, s. 8.
|
b) soit, si cette pénalité est imposée au titre de l'alinéa (1)c), le triple_:
(i) du montant dont les prestations sont déduites au titre du paragraphe 19(3),
(ii) du montant des prestations auxquelles le prestataire aurait eu droit pour la période en cause, n'eût été la déduction faite au titre du paragraphe 19(3) ou l'inadmissibilité ou l'exclusion dont il a fait l'objet;
c) soit, lorsque la période de prestations du prestataire n'a pas été établie, le triple du taux de prestations hebdomadaires maximal en vigueur au moment de la perpétration de l'acte délictueux.
38(3) Détermination au titre du paragraphe 145(2)
(3) Il demeure entendu que les semaines de prestations régulières remboursées par suite de la perpétration d'un acte délictueux visé au paragraphe (1) sont considérées comme des semaines de prestations régulières versées pour l'application du paragraphe 145(2).
1996, ch. 23, art. 38; 2001, ch. 5, art. 8.
|
|
...
Classification of violations
7.1(5) Except for violations for which a warning was imposed, each violation is classified as a minor, serious, very serious or subsequent violation as follows:
(a) if the value of the violation is
(i) less than_$1,000, it is a minor violation,
(ii)_$1,000 or more, but less than_$5,000, it is a serious violation, or
(iii)_$5,000 or more, it is a very serious violation; and
(b) if the notice of violation is issued within 260 weeks after the person accumulates another violation, it is a subsequent violation, even if the acts or omissions on which it is based occurred before the person accumulated the other violation.
Value of violations
7.1(6) The value of a violation is the total of
(a) the amount of the overpayment of benefits resulting from the acts or omissions on which the violation is based, and
(b) if the claimant is disqualified or disentitled from receiving benefits, or the act or omission on which the violation is based relates to qualification requirements under section 7, the amount determined, subject to subsection (7), by multiplying the claimant's weekly rate of benefit by the average number of weeks of regular benefits, as determined under the regulations.
|
[...]
Qualification de la violation
7.1(5) À l'exception des violations pour lesquelles un avertissement est donné, chaque violation est qualifiée de mineure, de grave, de très grave ou de subséquente, en fonction de ce qui suit_:
a) elle est mineure, si sa valeur est inférieure à 1 000_$, grave, si elle est inférieure à 5 000_$, et très grave, si elle est de 5 000_$ ou plus;
b) elle est subséquente si elle fait l'objet d'un avis de violation donné dans les deux cent soixante semaines suivant une autre violation, même si l'acte délictueux sur lequel elle est fondée a été perpétré avant cette dernière.
Valeur de la violation
7.1(6) La valeur d'une violation correspond à la somme des montants suivants_:
a) le versement excédentaire de prestations lié à l'acte délictueux sur lequel elle est fondée;
b) si le prestataire est exclu ou inadmissible au bénéfice des prestations, ou si l'acte délictueux en cause a trait aux conditions requises au titre de l'article 7, le montant obtenu, sous réserve du paragraphe (7), par multiplication de son taux de prestations hebdomadaires par le nombre moyen de semaines à l'égard desquelles des prestations régulières sont versées à un prestataire, déterminé conformément aux règlements.
|
[7] In support of the appeal, the Attorney General contends that the Umpire erred in law in his interpretation of Section 38 of the Act; that he exceeded his jurisdiction when he decreased the penalty amount and that he further erred when he reduced the serious notice of violation to a minor notice of violation pursuant to section 7.1 of the Act.
Analysis and Decision
[8] 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.
[9] It was therefore not open to the Umpire to intervene on the basis that the false representations ought to have been considered by the Commission as one continuous false representation. That is not what the Act provides, and 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.
[10] Furthermore, the Umpire erred in reducing the penalty in circumstances where he has been unable to show that the Commission failed to consider relevant factors or had regard for irrelevant factors (see for instance Attorney General of Canada v. Purcell (1995), A-694-94 (F.C.A.)).
[11] The Umpire also erred in his interpretation of section 7.1 of the Act when he reduced the notice of violation. Subsection 7.1(5) and 7.1(6) of the Act provide that if the value of the violation (the overpayment amount) is $1,000 or more, but less than $5,000, it is a serious violation. Since the overpayment in this case amounted to $4,455, the Umpire exceeded his jurisdiction when he reduced the notice from "serious" to "minor".
[12] For these reasons, I would allow the application for judicial review, set aside the decision of the Umpire and refer the matter back to the Chief Umpire or his designate for a new determination on the basis that the claimant's appeal from the decision of the Board of Referees should be dismissed. Although costs are sought, I would be inclined to make no award as the claimant did not attack any of the grounds for the application as these were advanced by the Attorney General.
"Marc Noël"
J.A.
"I agree.
Marshall Rothstein J.A."
"I agree.
B. Malone J.A."
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-396-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: Attorney General of Canada v. Roselyn S. Lingam
PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: May 3, 2005
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT: Noël J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: Rothstein J.A.
Malone J.A.
DATED: May 6, 2005
APPEARANCES:
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Email this Content