Summary of Issue

Decision A-0840.97 Full Text of Decision A-0840.97

Case identical to A-0839.97. See summary indexed under that reference.

Decision A-0839.97 Full Text of Decision A-0839.97

Considering the claimant’s duties as president of the company and the amount of money invested, the BOR refused to accept the claimant’s version of the facts regarding the amount of time spent on the business. The Umpire found that the BOR did not err in law in its decision and the BOR’s reasons are consistent with current jurisprudence (reference to Jouan, A-366-94). The FCA ruled that the BOR’s finding is reasonable and, in fact, irrefutable before the Umpire and dismissed the claimant’s appeal.

Decision 40377 Full Text of Decision 40377

Clmt declared having left his job to travel overseas. The trip being cancelled, he applied for benefits. Before the BOR, he said he had informed the employer of his intention to quit his job and that his employer had dismissed him before his anticipated departure date. BOR took into account only the claimant’s testimony rather than all the evidence and overlooked the clmt’s declaration on his application and that of the employer on theROE which clearly indicated a voluntary quit.

Decision 40214 Full Text of Decision 40214

Aware that an Umpire’s opinion cannot be substituted for that of a BOR when an assessment of credibility of the evidence on a question of fact is involved, Umpire deemed that the facts uncontested by the claimants as justification for their dismissal went beyond an assessment of credibility.

Decision 39868 Full Text of Decision 39868

The employer and claimant both assumed the opposite view of whether firing or dismissal took place. In the absence of evidence supporting the employer's version, the Umpire supported the BOR's decision by giving the benefit of the doubt to the claimant.

Decision 38254 Full Text of Decision 38254

One of the functions of a Board when faced with contradictory evidence, such as here the Employer's statements vary with those of the claimant, their role and duty is to determine the credibility of the conflicting evidence, and to determine what weight to put upon it.

Decision A-1002.96 Full Text of Decision A-1002.96

Claimant alleged that the Board of Referees violated the principles of natural justice and erred in law in giving preference to hearsay evidence over his oral testimony before the BOR. Umpire found that the BOR was not bound by the technical rules of evidence with apply before the ordinary courts of law and that it may consequently receive and accept hearsay evidence. FCA upheld the Umpire’s decision.

Decision A-0270.96 Full Text of Decision A-0270.96

Umpire ruled that it was up to the Board of Referees to consider the ultimate question, which concerned not only which of the two versions had to be preferred, but whether, even if the employer’s version were set aside, the testimony of the claimant could be relied upon, given his previous statements. The BOR had a duty to weigh the testimony and previous statements with care, but preferred to accept the claimant’s testimony and ignored the contradictions on the record. The FCA agreed with the Umpire’s decision to set aside the decision of the BOR.

Decision 28600 Full Text of Decision 28600

When faced with contradictory testimonies on the part of the employer and the employee, the mere fact that one is present at the hearing and the other not should not be a determining factor. The Board is free to deem one more credible that the other.

Decision 24370A Full Text of Decision 24370A

The Board simply concludes by finding that the employer was apparently more credible than the employee. There is no explanation for how and why the Board came to this conclusion. The Board had the duty to give some examples or justification why. The absence of such finding is an error in law.

Decision 21528 Full Text of Decision 21528

The Board did not have regard to claimant's signed statement that farming was his main livelihood, that he worked at it all day. The Board adopted his statements, in the telephone hearing, without regard to the fact that he had not worked off the farm during the farming season.

Decision 18905 Full Text of Decision 18905

Gave several reasons for quitting his job in 1st statement and health reasons specifically excluded. Contradicted himself later and said main reason was medical. Credibility weakened to the point where the Board could properly doubt the truth of the other reasons for quitting.

Decision 18671 Full Text of Decision 18671

A number of documents in the file such as the lease and a document form the protonotary testify to the insured person's involvement in the company. By giving more value to evidence contradicting that, the Board did not take account of the points brought to its knowledge.

Decision 18063 Full Text of Decision 18063

The Commission argues that it is highly unlikely that an officer would give claimant the advice which she alleges she was given since it is not in keeping with the procedures. The Board must weigh this evidence of standard procedures against the credibility of her explanation.

Decision 15034 Full Text of Decision 15034

Referees ought to scrutinize employer's statements with every bit as much care as they scrutinize employees' statements. If they initially approach employees' statements with a grain of skepticism, so they ought also to approach employers' statements. No double standard.

Decision 14833 Full Text of Decision 14833

When assessing the conflicting evidence of individuals, it is not enough to focus on their demeanour (pleasant or unpleasant) and appearance. One should ask "what makes sense in the situation".