Decision 18063

Summary:

If she was advised by a Commission employee that she should fill out a form in a certain way, even though the text of the form might seem to require a different approach, she could not be found to have knowingly made a false statement when following theadvice of the employee.

---

Summary:

Some Umpires have said that the proof must be beyond a reasonable doubt, others that the proof required falls "somewhat shy of" this but must be higher than the balance of probabilities. I am not persuaded that the Commission needs to go so far as to prove an intent to deceive.

---

Summary:

It is clear that the jurisprudence requires that Umpires not read decisions of Boards "microscopically", with a view to searching out every possible error or uncertainty therein. See MATHEODAKIS.

---

Summary:

In STAMBERG, it was held that in the context of that case the Board had no valid reason to ignore the sworn declaration. While the Board is not authorized to ignore statutory declarations, neither must they accept them uncritically. Boards are required to weigh such evidence.

---

Summary:

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.

---

Summary:

The Board's approach should be: (1) statement proven by CEIC to be false; (2) burden shifts to claimant to prove she did not know it to be false; (3) whether her explanation is credible; (4) not to be believed if considerable doubt; (5) to be believed if explanation likely true.

---

Summary:

One way to test the credibility is for Board members to question the claimant directly, themselves, with respect to her explanation. The Board cannot be faulted for treating self-serving, after the fact statements with some degree of scepticism.

---