| 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]
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
natural justice |
free of bias |
|
Summary:
The Board did not act fairly. It deliberately contrived a double evidentiary standard on the question of hearsay evidence of the employer by rejecting out of hand the hearsay letter because it lacked notarization. [p. 10-11]
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
right to be heard |
improper hearing |
|
Summary:
Once the Board rejected the statement because of lack of notarization, fairness would dictate that the hearing be adjourned in order to enable claimant to provide a formal statement in keeping with the Board's requirement for authenticity. [p. 11]
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
selection of one ground |
|
Summary:
S.80 and 81 must be read together in context, not separately and in isolation. They should be given a broad and remedial construction. Once a ground for appeal is found valid, an Umpire can decide any question on law or fact necessary for the disposition of the appeal. [p. 12]
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
not a trial de novo |
|
Summary:
It is settled beyond doubt or question that an appeal to an Umpire is not a trial de novo calling for a complete retrial of the case. [p. 9]
