Summary of Issue: Hearsay


Decision A-0468.00 Full Text of Decision A-0468.00

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees weight of statements hearsay
Summary:

The Court reiterated that the Boards of Referees are not bound by the strict rules of evidence applicable to criminal or civil courts, and may therefore, receive and accept hearsay evidence.


Decision 37455C Full Text of Decision 37455C

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees weight of statements hearsay
Summary:

Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0468.00


Decision 42394 Full Text of Decision 42394

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees weight of statements hearsay
Summary:

Evidence of misconduct in claimant's case was limited to officer's notes from telephone conversation with employer. BOR gave preference to hearsay in taking employer's version over that of claimant. Although, hearsay may be admissible before a BOR, doctrine always gives precedence to direct testimony.


Decision 25506 Full Text of Decision 25506

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees weight of statements hearsay
Summary:

The CEIC was not obliged to produce those witnesses at the Board hearing; nevertheless the Board could quite properly give more weight to the viva voce evidence of persons whose testimony it had an opportunity to test by questioning, than to second-hand statements of persons not present.


Decision 21977 Full Text of Decision 21977

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees weight of statements hearsay
Summary:

The case law has clearly established that Boards may accept hearsay evidence. In accepting that evidence however, the Board must respect the rules of natural justice, which means that claimant be given an opportunity to comment on and contradict that evidence.

other summary
Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
umpires grounds of appeal capricious finding req'd

Decision 19516 Full Text of Decision 19516

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees weight of statements hearsay
Summary:

I do not interpret the Board's decision as meaning that it was finding hearsay evidence to be inadmissible. It was simply finding such evidence to be unconvincing. The decision went to the weight of the evidence rather than to its admissibility. No error of law.

other summary
Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees weight of statements by telephone
board of referees errors in law burden of proof

Decision 16222 Full Text of Decision 16222

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees weight of statements hearsay
Summary:

Not a trial in the nature of the normal criminal or civil process of courts. Not bound by strict rules of evidence. Hearsay evidence may be accepted. Not bound to accept facts as stated by claimant or those as stated by employer.

other summary
Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees right to cross-examine
board of referees jurisdiction reason for existence of boards
board of referees jurisdiction assess credibility duty

Decision 14983 Full Text of Decision 14983

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees weight of statements hearsay
Summary:

It is accepted that hearings before Boards are administrative hearings before administrative tribunals, which are not bound by the strict rules of hearsay evidence. The issue of hearsay in any particular case appears to be a matter of weight rather thannon-admissibility.


Decision 13366 Full Text of Decision 13366

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees weight of statements hearsay
Summary:

The Board should not readily ignore direct, oral evidence, which is subject to cross-examination, in favour of indirect hearsay that is subject to no cross-examination.


Decision 12516 Full Text of Decision 12516

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees weight of statements hearsay
Summary:

It is accepted as well that Boards of Referees, like other administrative tribunals, are not bound by the strict rules of evidence applicable in a court of law but that they can receive and accept hearsay evidence and assess it. [p. 9]

other summary
Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees natural justice free of bias
board of referees right to be heard improper hearing
umpires grounds of appeal selection of one ground
umpires grounds of appeal not a trial de novo

Decision 11301A Full Text of Decision 11301A

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees weight of statements hearsay
Summary:

Boards are not courts bound by the strict rules of evidence and it is well established that they may receive and act on hearsay. I agree that Boards should be cognizant of the weaknesses inherent in hearsay evidence.

other summary
Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees constitution of board change of members

Decision 12281 Full Text of Decision 12281

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees weight of statements hearsay
Summary:

Nothing prohibits the admissibility of hearsay evidence where such evidence can be fairly regarded as reliable. In admitting hearsay evidence the Board must observe the rules of natural justice, but this does not mean that it must be tested by cross-examination. [p. 5-6]

other summary
Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees right to cross-examine
board of referees natural justice notice of hearing
availability for work applicability rationale
availability for work applicability definition

Decision 12127 Full Text of Decision 12127

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees weight of statements hearsay
Summary:

Documents that are not certified copies, and hearsay, are admissible.

other summary
Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
earnings proof

Decision 11915 Full Text of Decision 11915

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees weight of statements hearsay
Summary:

Major argument was that the Board based its decision on hearsay evidence. The appeal cannot succeed on that ground. MILLS referred to.


Decision 11746 Full Text of Decision 11746

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees weight of statements hearsay
Summary:

Context: misconduct. Second ground also cannot be upheld, as Federal Court of Appeal has clearly held that a board may admit and accept hearsay evidence. See MILLS.


Decision 11346 Full Text of Decision 11346

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees weight of statements hearsay
Summary:

Evidence mere hearsay according to insured. See MILLS. Very clear: the deathknell has sounded for this argument.

other summary
Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
misconduct proof
misconduct obstinance

Decision 10720 Full Text of Decision 10720

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees weight of statements hearsay
Summary:

Very difficult to accept conclusion that 2nd-hand hearsay from employer not subject to cross-examination to be preferred to oral statements before Board by claimant and witness. Not to be penalized by absence of employer. Direct conflict here, erroneousfinding of fact.


Decision 10674 Full Text of Decision 10674

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees weight of statements hearsay
Summary:

While according to MILLS the board may admit and accept hearsay evidence, it must still be conclusive and consistent with the admissions of the person reporting it. Hearsay reported by the employer inconsistent with employer's own account.

other summary
Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
misconduct proof

Decision A-1873.83 Full Text of Decision A-1873.83

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees weight of statements hearsay
Summary:

The Umpire wrote, "I do not see how any Board can be asked to make a finding of misconduct, except upon some direct evidence of it". We are all of opinion that this is an error of law. Boards, like other administrative tribunals, are not bound by the strict rules of evidence applicable in criminal or civil courts; they may, therefore, receive and accept hearsay evidence.

other summary
Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
misconduct proof
board of referees errors in law burden of proof
Date modified: