Summary of Issue: Burden Of Proof

Decision A0444.08 Full Text of Decision A0444.08

The FCA concluded that the Board erred in law when it ruled on the claimant's availability in considering the facts and circumstances subsequent to the moment at which she left her job. We gather from the ruling that the circumstances should be analysed from the moment at which the claimant lost her job. The Court also made reference to the case of Attorney General of Canada v. Cornelissen-O'Neil by mentioning that the Umpire was supposed to give a ruling on the Commission's second ground of appeal, which concerned the issue of the claimant's availability. To the Umpire alone, this ground could, with supporting evidence, justify the refusal to grant benefits regardless of what mitigating circumstances there may be.

Decision A-0136.97 Full Text of Decision A-0136.97

Case identical to that of Michel Castonguay. See summary indexed under A-0137. 97.

Decision A-0137.97 Full Text of Decision A-0137.97

Claimant participated in an hour banking scheme. When work slowed down, the claimant’s banked hours were paid to him as a salary. Commission allocated to the weeks in question the earnings the claimant had received from the overtime hours banked. BOR overturned this decision, judging that it was based on figures and other considerations of unknown provenance. FCA found that the Umpire had erred in refusing to intervene on the grounds of the credibility of the witnesses where the BOR had wrongly assessed the evidence: far from being erroneous, as the BOR asserted, all the figures (overtime hours and weeks in which the remuneration had been paid) provided by the employer’s accountant and endorsed by the employer were acknowledged by the claimant. It was unreasonable to see this as a question of credibility when the facts introduced in evidence were not challenged, were consistent and were even acknowledged.

Decision 39277 Full Text of Decision 39277

The Board of Referees erred in fact and in law in finding that the claimant was unemployed and available. The Board completely ignored the documentary evidence, which showed that the claimant worked 30 to 40 hours per week to set up a business in which he held 25% of the shares, that he had invested time and money in the business, and that he had not looked for work because he was putting all his efforts into working for himself.

Decision A-0510.96 Full Text of Decision A-0510.96

FCA found that the Umpire and Board of Referees erred in deciding that the claimant should have produced a doctor’s certificate to support her claim that she had no alternative but to leave her employment. It is obvious that she was not claiming to have an illness when she said that working in a standing position hurt her feet. She simply found employment in a restaurant too difficult from a physical point of view. Since no one doubted her credibility, a certificate would have added nothing to her testimony.

Decision A-0003.96 Full Text of Decision A-0003.96

Claimant suspended for vandalism. Only evidence in the record: a summary of an officer's telephone conversation with employer's representative. Board of Referees' decision set aside by the Umpire: the Board of Referees did not give sufficient consideration to credibility of the evidence. Error of law according to the FCA. The burden of proof was on the Commission. Evidence contradicted at the hearing and testimonies accepted as trustworthy. Umpire's findings adequately explained. Commission must bear the consequences of any shortcomings in the evidence.

Decision A-0471.95 Full Text of Decision A-0471.95

BOR took employer's version over that of the claimant. This "version" was nothing more than a brief written statement by a representative of the employer, to the effect that the employee had been dismissed for being absent without leave. The employer's opinion that there was misconduct justifying the dismissal was insufficient. On the contrary, an objective assessment was required to determine whether misconduct had really been the cause of the loss of employment. The FCA had to ensure that the applicable principles were observed and that conclusions reached could be drawn from the facts as analyzed. In this case, the decision did not appear to be properly based on the evidence on file.

Decision 25973A Full Text of Decision 25973A

Refer to: A-0281.95

Decision A-0281.95 Full Text of Decision A-0281.95

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.

Decision 31080 Full Text of Decision 31080

Misconduct. Hearsay evidence admissible in UI cases. No obligation on the part of employer to appear at hearing. Arbitration boards have the authority to obtain all the facts, but in this case the Board went too far in indicating the type of evidence it wanted: legal error.

Decision 31057A Full Text of Decision 31057A

Refer to: A-0003.96

Decision 28142 Full Text of Decision 28142

Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0471.95