Appeal Dismissed for Claimant's False Statements on Benefits Eligibility

Citation: OO v Canada Employment Insurance Commission , 2026  [NAME]  1 Social Security Tribunal of Canada General Division – Employment Insurance Section Decision Appellant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: Canada Employment Insurance Commission reconsideration decision (0) dated [May 1, 2025] December 3, 2025 (issued by Service Canada) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: Teleconference Hearing date: December 30, 2025 Hearing participant: Appellant Decision date: January 2, 2025 CORRIGENDUM DATE: January 5, 2026 File number: GE-25-3404 On this page Decision Overview Issues Analysis Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] The appeal is dismissed. Overview [ 2 ] The Appellant left the country for two separate weeks while he was collecting [NAME] ) benefits. While he was outside the country, he completed report cards. He didn’t say he was outside of Canada. So, he received benefits for those weeks. [ 3 ] Then the Commissioned learned that the Appellant had been outside of Canada. It reviewed his file. It decided that he wasn’t entitled to benefits while he was outside of Canada. This meant the Appellant had to pay back the benefits he wasn’t entitled to. And the Commission found that the Appellant had made false statements. So, it imposed a penalty. [ 4 ] The Appellant asked the Commission to reconsider. The Commission reduced the amount of the penalty. But it didn’t change the other decisions it made. [ 5 ] The Appellant appealed to the General Division of the Social Security Tribunal. The General Division dismissed his appeal and found that he wasn’t entitled to benefits while he was outside of Canada. He appealed that decision to the Appeal Division. [ 6 ] The Appeal division found that the General Division made some errors in its decision. So, the Appeal Division corrected the General Division’s errors, and it substituted its decision for the General Division’s decision. The Appeal Division agreed with the General Division’s conclusion that the Appellant wasn’t entitled to benefits while he was outside of Canada. [ 7 ] But the Appeal Division asked the General Division to have a new hearing about whether the Appellant knowingly made false statements. And whether the Commission acted judicially when it decided on a penalty for the Appellant. Issues [ 8 ] I have to decide the two issues that were referred back to me by the Appeal Division. They are: Did the Appellant make false statements? Did the Commission properly use its discretion by imposing a penalty on the Appellant? Analysis Issue 1: Did the Appellant make false statements? [ 9 ] When the Commission says that a person made a false representation, the Commission has to prove that. It has to prove that it is more likely than not that the person knowingly made a false statement. [ 10 ] The Commission has to show that a person wrongly answered a very simple question. If it shows this, the individual has to give a reasonable explanation for why the false statement wasn’t made knowingly. [ 11 ] The Commission says the Appellant made four false statements. That is, he said four times that he wasn’t outside Canada when he was. [ 12 ] The Appellant agrees that he was outside of Canada. And he filled in reports where he was asked if he was outside of Canada during the period covered by the reports. And he said no. [ 13 ] The Appellant agrees that saying he wasn’t outside of Canada when he was is untrue. But he says it was a mistake and he didn’t do it knowingly. [ 14 ] The Appellant was apologetic. He just clicked through the online reports unconsciously. He has only collected [NAME] benefits once before. [ 15 ] The Commission filed copies of the Appellant’s reports covering the periods of May 29, 2022, to June 11, 2022, and June 12, 2022, to June 25, 2022. Footnote 1 In both reports, the Appellant says he wasn’t outside Canada. [ 16 ] The Appellant was outside of Canada from April 13 to April 20, 2022, and from June 7 to 14, 2022. Footnote 2 [ 17 ] The Commission didn’t file copies of the Appellant’s reports from April. But the Appellant agrees that he reported he was not outside of Canada when he was. [ 18 ] I don’t have copies of the Appellant’s reports from April. But the Appellant agrees that he made false reports during both times he was outside Canada. Both of his trips outside of Canada covered two weeks of benefits. Footnote 3 So, this means he made four false representations. [ 19 ] The Appellant didn’t give good reasons for making false reports. He says he just clicked through the reports automatically. And that he only got benefits once before. [ 20 ] These aren’t good reasons. The Appellant agreed when he applied for benefits that he would report information accurately, including if he was outside of Canada. Footnote 4 And on each report, he agreed he was telling the truth. Footnote 5 The Appellant didn’t suggest that he didn’t understand the questions on the reports. And in any event, the questions are simple and straightforward. [ 21 ] I find that the Appellant knowingly made four misrepresentations. Issue 2: Did the Commission exercise its discretion properly when it imposed a penalty on the Appellant? [ 22 ] The Commission exercised its discretion properly when it imposed a penalty on the Appellant for making four misrepresentations. [ 23 ] The Commission has the power to go back and reconsider a claimant’s entitlement to benefits. The Commission’s power to do so is discretionary. [ 24 ] This means that the Commission doesn’t have to do a review. But it can choose to do so. And it if does choose to exercise its discretion to reconsider a claim, it must do so properly. This means that it has to exercise its discretion in a judicial manner. So, it must not act in bad faith or for an improper purpose or motive. And it must not consider an irrelevant factor or ignore a relevant factor. And it must not act in a discriminatory manner. [ 25 ] I can only change the Commission’s decision if I find it didn’t exercise its discretion in a judicial manner when it decided to go back and reconsider the Appellant’s claim. [ 26 ] The Commission has explained its decision to issue a penalty. It has explained that it reduced the penalty after the Appellant asked for reconsideration. Footnote 6 And it has explained how it calculated the penalty. Footnote 7 [ 27 ] At the hearing, I explained to the Appellant how the Commission has to exercise its discretion. And I asked the Appellant if he had any information to support a finding that the Commission didn’t exercise its discretion properly. The Appellant didn’t have any information. [ 28 ] I have reviewed the file carefully. The Commission got information from the CBSA that the Appellant had travelled outside Canada while he was getting benefits. And based on what I see in the file, the Commission took into account only relevant information, didn’t consider irrelevant information, and didn’t show bad faith or discrimination when it decided to impose a penalty on the Appellant, and when it reduced the penalty. [ 29 ] I find that the Commission properly exercised its discretion when it imposed a penalty on the Appellant for making four false representations in connection with this claim for [NAME] benefits. Conclusion [ 30 ] The appeal is dismissed. Footnotes Footnote 1 See GD3-30 to GD3-39. Return to footnote 1 Footnote 2 See GD3-47. Return to footnote 2 Footnote 3 Benefit weeks start on Sundays, and the Appellant travelled mid week both times he left the country during his benefit period. This means he filled in two reports (one for each week of benefits) for each trip. Return to footnote 3 Footnote 4 See GD3-8. Return to footnote 4 Footnote 5 See GD3-33. Return to footnote 5 Footnote 6 See GD3-52. Return to footnote 6 Footnote 7 See GD3-56. Return to footnote 7