| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
hearings |
city |
|
Summary:
The claimant contends that she was not well served by having appeal heard in Hamilton. Board members not sensitive to local conditions of a community such as Bearskin Lake. This point is well taken. This is the reason for having local Boards hear appeals.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
natural justice |
defined |
|
Summary:
Attendance at a hearing and the right to leave a written document with the Board members is not proof that the parties were given an adequate opportunity to present their case.
It is not up to the claimant to ensure that the proceedings did not end until she was able to present her evidence. It is the responsibility of the Chairman of the Board.
