R. v. D'Amour, 2002 CanLII 45015 (ON CA)
[12] [12] The appellant did not make any false statements in her initial application and it was determined that she was entitled to receive assistance under the Act. About two months later, she commenced employment and continued that employment for the next two years. Although the appellant reported changes in her circumstances which enhanced her entitlement to benefits under the Act, she did not report her employment. She continued to receive benefits under the Act based on her ongoing representation that she had no income or earnings. Had she disclosed her employment income, the appellant would not have been totally ineligible for benefits under the Act, but her benefits would have been reduced by some $14,636.98 over the two year time period.
[13] [13] In March 1997, Mr. Woo, a caseworker with the Department, met with the appellant and asked her to provide him with her T4 slips for the years 1994, 1995 and 1996. He made this request because the Department had received documents suggesting that the appellant, contrary to her representations, had been employed while receiving benefits. Under s. 10 of the Act, the Department could withhold benefit cheques if the appellant did not produce the T4 slips. Mr. Woo told the appellant that benefit cheques would be withheld until she provided the requested T4 slips. She subsequently gave the T4 slips to Mr. Woo and received her benefit cheques. The T4 slips confirmed that the appellant had received some $28,000 in undisclosed income.
[59] [59] The appellant applied for benefits under the Act. In exchange for the receipt of those benefits, she undertook to make full, accurate and ongoing disclosure of her income. She knew that this obligation included the production of documents relevant to her income if requested by the Department. The application signed by the appellant contained a clear notice that obtaining benefits by dishonest means constituted the crime of fraud.
Aucun commentaire:
Publier un commentaire