Decision 16768

Case Number Claimant Judge Language Decision date
Decision 16768   Pinard  French 1989-06-30
Decision Appealed Appellant Corresponding Case
Returned to a different Board  No N/A  -


Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
claim procedure  proof required for entitlement 

Summary:

Obviously, the Board erred in law in its assessment of the burden of proof. While subsection 40(1) places on the claimant the burden of proving his entitlement in every case, this proof must be established on the balance of probabilities and not "beyond all doubt".


Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees  errors in law  burden of proof 

Summary:

Obviously, the Board erred in law in its assessment of the burden of proof. While subsection 40(1) places on the claimant the burden of proving his entitlement in every case, this proof must be established on the balance of probabilities and not "beyond all doubt".


Date modified: