Decision 65343
Full Text of Decision 65343
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
contradictory |
|
Summary:
It is a well established principle that, when there is a contradictory statement, the initial statement must be given more weight than the subsequent statement. The Umpire concluded that the issue of physical requirements, which the Board ruled was justification to leave employment, was an after-the-fact issue and ought not to have been given undue weight.
Decision 38483A
Full Text of Decision 38483A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
contradictory |
|
Summary:
Clmt’s early statements contradicted the oral evidence presented before BOR. Umpire stated that earlier statements in proper circumstance may be regarded as more credible than later contradictory statements especially where earlier and later statements are made by the same person and given after clmt became aware of the consequences.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| proof |
weight of statements |
|
|
Decision 39925
Full Text of Decision 39925
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
contradictory |
|
Summary:
Hearings before BOR are informal and BOR may chose such evidence as impressed them which would not necessarily be admissible in a court of law. In front of contradictory evidence presented by employer and claimant, BOR give weight to it as they believe is warranted - that is their area of expertise - credibility of the evidence.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
assess credibility |
duty |
| proof |
weight of statements |
|
|
Decision A-0557.96
Full Text of Decision A-0557.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
contradictory |
|
Summary:
Contradictory evidence in the record. Initial statutory declarations considered most credible. Abundant, consistent case law clearly establishing that a BOR must lend much greater weight to the initial spontaneous declarations made prior to the Commission's decision than to statements made later to justify or improve the claimant's situation in the face of an unfavourable decision from the Commission. Application for judicial review summarily dismissed by the FCA.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| proof |
weight of statements |
|
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
weight of statements |
|
Decision 37105
Full Text of Decision 37105
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
contradictory |
|
Summary:
Umpire cannot give much weight to the new evidence submitted by the claimant with respect to the alternative employment at Pro Service Equipment & Tape. Throughout his claim, he has never indicated that he left his position with the RCMP because he had a reasonable expectation of alternatvie employment.In fact, in a questionnaire he completed, he specifically answered "no" to the question "did you voluntarily leave your job because of another job offer?
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
definition |
|
Decision 25154
Full Text of Decision 25154
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
contradictory |
|
Summary:
A longstanding and abundant jurisprudence has clearly established that a Board must give much more weight to initial and spontaneous statements made before disentitlement than to subsequent statements made in an attempt to justify the ex-post facto actions which led to to the disentitlement.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
weight of statements |
|
Decision 21689
Full Text of Decision 21689
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
contradictory |
|
Summary:
There was also a serious error of law. The Board accepted that as a matter of law earlier statements of a claimant are to be given credibility over later statements. This is not representative of the law. It may be a useful rule of thumb, but that is not an invariable rule.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
observations from the Commission |
|
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Decision 18330
Full Text of Decision 18330
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
contradictory |
|
Summary:
There is no such hard and fast rule entitling anyone to apply "more credence to the first statement" automatically. There could well be reasons of intimidation, inducement, conflict of personalities which could invest the subsequent statement with the greater credibility.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
job search |
warning before disentitlement |
|
Decision 17855
Full Text of Decision 17855
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
contradictory |
|
Summary:
If the Board felt bound in law to give precedence to the 1st statement, it erred. Frequently, more weight will be given to the 1st statement but there is no conclusive presumption that it must be accepted over a later one. The Board must consider and weigh all evidence.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
constitution of board |
member ineligible |
|
Decision 17843
Full Text of Decision 17843
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
contradictory |
|
Summary:
Claimant clearly stated on a form he was not available, and the question was too clear to be misinterpreted. The best evidence would be proof of a job search. The only such evidence, where 4 employer contacts were listed, contains no dates, addresses ornames of people contacted.
Decision 16913
Full Text of Decision 16913
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
contradictory |
|
Summary:
Not available as he retired through incentive program for younger people. The Board was correct: When attempting to rebut initial statements, supportive evidence is required. Not enough to say that an error was made. Had he really wanted to work, he would not have retired early.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
incompatible situations |
retiring voluntary |
|
Decision 14876
Full Text of Decision 14876
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
contradictory |
|
Summary:
1st explanation likely truer because one has not had time to adjust it to fit UI requirements but often given in response to questions not clear or approached with certain preconceptions. These can lead claimants to answer in restrictive way than truly reflects their intentions.
The Commission is overly quick to quote CUB 8741 that the first statements made by an individual have more credibility than those made subsequently. This is a presumption; it is a guideline; but, it is not a rule to be applied mechanically and woodenly.[p. 6]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
right to be heard |
improper hearing |
|
| availability for work |
job search |
effective date |
|
| availability for work |
restrictions |
or preferences |
|
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
clarification |
|
Decision 12738A
Full Text of Decision 12738A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
contradictory |
|
Summary:
Clearly established in case law that in terms of credibility first statement is more candid reflection of situation while subsequent statements will naturally serve claimant's interests and justify claimant's position.
Decision 14084
Full Text of Decision 14084
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
contradictory |
|
Summary:
Board did say that the case law places greater weight on a first statement. Not error of law. Principle itself is not a legal or evidenciary rule. It is a common sense rule that every reasonable person would adopt.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Decision 14000
Full Text of Decision 14000
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
contradictory |
|
Summary:
I have often expressed my disapproval of the so-called first statement rule that has been wrongly applied in cases where the contradictions do not raise a pure issue of credibility. There is no rigid rule of law that a first statement must always be accepted at face value.
Decision 13986
Full Text of Decision 13986
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
contradictory |
|
Summary:
It is also recognized in the case law that a claimant's first statement is generally the one that best reflects the situation at the time while subsequent statements tend rather to justify the claimant once disentitled.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
applicability |
proof |
|
| availability for work |
courses |
extent of availability required |
|
Decision 12690A
Full Text of Decision 12690A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
contradictory |
|
Summary:
I do not accept the Board's conclusion that claimant has changed his story. His first statement was that he was not sure that the hours of the course were flexible. He later found out that they were. That is not a contradiction.
Decision 13599
Full Text of Decision 13599
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
contradictory |
|
Summary:
This is no more than a rule of thumb at best and I have expressed reservations concerning it on other occasions. There is no hard and fast rule that a statement made before disentitlement is entitled to more credence than one made for explanation or clarification.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Decision 13566
Full Text of Decision 13566
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
contradictory |
|
Summary:
There is consistent and abundant case law holding that much more weight must be given to an initial statement than to subsequent statements which may, qutie naturally, be self-serving.
Decision 13550
Full Text of Decision 13550
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
contradictory |
|
Summary:
Frequently held in case law that first statement carries greater probative value than subsequent explanations, which often bear the mark of vindication or self-justification.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
unauthorized leave of absence |
|
Decision 13377
Full Text of Decision 13377
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
contradictory |
|
Summary:
The Board made an error of law in treating the normal preference for earlier statements as a rule of law rather than as a rule of thumb. While normally they may be regarded as more reliable, in the context here they were made where the central issue wassomething else.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Decision 13360
Full Text of Decision 13360
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
contradictory |
|
Summary:
While it is true that earlier statements as a general rule may be given more weight than later ones, one must view with great care anwers given on questionnnaires where the purpose of the question is not understood and the questionnaire calls for a brief answer.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
personal participation |
|
|
Decision 13115
Full Text of Decision 13115
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
contradictory |
|
Summary:
There is no hard and fast rule of law to the effect that an initial statement made before disentitlement is entitled to more credence than one made later. There is no basis for any bald proposition that a first statement is always admissible in preference to a second statement.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
restrictions |
geographical area |
|
| availability for work |
incompatible situations |
good reasons |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
not applying jurisprudence |
|
Decision 12577
Full Text of Decision 12577
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
contradictory |
|
Summary:
The Board did not take into account the claimant's explanation. While as a general rule more credence is given to prior statements, these in this case were sufficiently ambiguous that they were susceptible of subjective interpretation. Not a principle of law but a rule of thumb.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
restrictions |
type of work |
|
Decision A-0780.85
Full Text of Decision A-0780.85
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
contradictory |
|
Summary:
According to the Umpire, it is a well-established principle that more weight must be given to the first statement than to a subsequent one where the first statement resulted in disentitlement to benefit. Upheld by FC without comment.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
second notice found valid |
|
Decision 11250
Full Text of Decision 11250
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
contradictory |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0780.85
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
second notice found valid |
|
Decision 11556
Full Text of Decision 11556
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
contradictory |
|
Summary:
The law is quite clear, that the first statement made is to be given greater weight than subsequent explanations or comment. CUB 8741 states that one must give more credence to a first declaration even not signed.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
applicability |
proof |
|
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
not signed |
|
Decision 11451
Full Text of Decision 11451
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
contradictory |
|
Summary:
There is a plethora of decisions in which it is held that those early statements are more credible than later ones, when the later statement maker might be inclined to make an improved statement.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
misinformation from Commission |
|
|
Decision 11233
Full Text of Decision 11233
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
contradictory |
|
Summary:
Although there is substance to the doctrine that a claimant's early statements should be given full weight, it does not always and necessarily follow that the message taken by a Commission staff is the message that was intended by the claimant.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| teaching |
availability for work |
summer months |
|
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
from a Commission agent |
|
Decision 11212
Full Text of Decision 11212
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
contradictory |
|
Summary:
Case law is consistent: more weight must be placed on first statement (even if unsigned, as often happens) than on statement made subsequent to the disentitlement that resulted from first statement.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
not signed |
|
Decision 11215
Full Text of Decision 11215
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
contradictory |
|
Summary:
It has repeatedly been held that more credence should be given to an earlier statement than to a later one and to statements made before disentitlement than those made after. [p. 4]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
conditions required |
7 days without work |
|
Decision 11019
Full Text of Decision 11019
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
contradictory |
|
Summary:
Case law on the weight to be given a claimant's own admissions is also well established. Greater weight will be given to an earlier statement than to a subsequent and often more self-serving one.
Decision 10782
Full Text of Decision 10782
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
contradictory |
|
Summary:
At hearing, made attempt to repudiate what he had formally stated; no hesitation in rejecting his subsequent assertions. Case law is consistent: more weight must be given to first statement (even if not signed) than to second.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
work without earnings |
|
|
| week of unemployment |
availability for work |
|
|
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
not signed |
|
Decision A-0739.83
Full Text of Decision A-0739.83
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
contradictory |
|
Summary:
No hesitation in rejecting his subsequent statements; the case law is settled: more weight must be given to a 1st statement (even unsigned, which often happens) than to a subsequent statement, according to the Umpire. Upheld by FC without comment.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
not signed |
|
