Decision A-0281.95

Case Number Claimant Judge Language Decision date
Decision A-0281.95 Kumar Raj Rani  Federal  English 1996-03-07
Decision Appealed Appellant Corresponding Case
Dismissed Unanimous  No N/A  25973A 


Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees  right of being represented 

Summary:

They chose their representative, and absent some kind of fraud, the quality of the representation is of no concern to the Tribunal. If every dissatisfied client, after the fact, could challenge his representatives' handling of his case, there would be no end to the litigation. Not disturbed by FCA.


Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
proof  errors in law  burden of proof 

Summary:

Board's right to rely on statutory declarations not sworn was challenged. Held that BOR has a broad discretion in considering, attaching weight, accepting or rejecting evidence adduced before it. Not bound by rules of evidence in the way that a judicialtrier of fact is bound. Not disturbed by FCA.


Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees  errors in law  burden of proof 

Summary:

Board's right to rely on statutory declarations not sworn was challenged. Held that BOR has a broad discretion in considering, attaching weight, accepting or rejecting evidence adduced before it. Not bound by rules of evidence in the way that a judicialtrier of fact is bound. Not disturbed by FCA.


Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
proof  errors in law  rules of evidence 

Summary:

Board's right to rely on statutory declarations not sworn was challenged. Held that BOR has a broad discretion in considering, attaching weight, accepting or rejecting evidence adduced before it. Not bound by rules of evidence in the way that a judicialtrier of fact is bound. Not disturbed by FCA.


Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees  right to be heard  language to be used 

Summary:

Alleged by representative that the BOR failed to ascertain the competency of claimants' interpreters. Umpire held that where the interpreter is the appellant's selectee, it should be safe to assume that his/her competency has been acknowledged and accepted by the appellant. Not disturbed by the FCA.


Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment  farming  full working week 

Summary:

Alleged that contrary to Reg.42(2), no evidence submitted that claimant worked 5 days/week. Held that BOR was entitled to accept evidence as being probative of the fact that, by doing 60-70 hours each week, she had worked at least a 5-day week without the specific statement being made. Upheld by FCA


Date modified: