Summary of Issue

Decision A-0468.00 Full Text of Decision A-0468.00

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

Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0468.00

Decision 42394 Full Text of Decision 42394

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

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

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.

Decision 19516 Full Text of Decision 19516

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.

Decision 16222 Full Text of Decision 16222

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.

Decision 14983 Full Text of Decision 14983

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

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

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]

Decision 11301A Full Text of Decision 11301A

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.

Decision 12281 Full Text of Decision 12281

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]

Decision 12127 Full Text of Decision 12127

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

Decision 11915 Full Text of Decision 11915

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

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

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

Decision 10720 Full Text of Decision 10720

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

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.

Decision A-1873.83 Full Text of Decision A-1873.83

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.