| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
hearsay |
|
Summary:
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.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
by telephone |
|
Summary:
While it is correct to introduce hearsay evidence, in matters of this importance (serious misconduct) the best evidence should be produced. Records of interviews should be signed by employer. Too easy to make allegations over the phone. Subject to very high level of deniability.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Summary:
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.
