| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
interview without counsel |
|
Summary:
Counsel for the claimant argued that his client should have been granted his constitutional rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by being given the appropriate warning and being offered the services of a lawyer or counsellor. Consequently, his client's statutory declarations should be disregarded. Argument dismissed by the Umpire. Claimant may refuse to answer and thus lay himself open to the effects of the law, but if he speaks or writes, his statements cannot be disregarded for the reasons given by counsel.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
proof |
weight of statements |
|
Summary:
Counsel for the claimant argued that his client should have been granted his constitutional rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by being given the appropriate warning and being offered the services of a lawyer or counsellor. Consequently, his client's statutory declarations should be disregarded. Argument dismissed by the Umpire. Claimant may refuse to answer and thus lay himself open to the effects of the law, but if he speaks or writes, his statements cannot be disregarded for the reasons given by counsel.Counsel for the claimant argued that his client should have been granted his constitutional rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by being given the appropriate warning and being offered the services of a lawyer or counsellor. Consequently, his client's statutory declarations should be disregarded. Argument dismissed by the Umpire. Claimant may refuse to answer and thus lay himself open to the effects of the law, but if he speaks or writes, his statements cannot be disregarded for the reasons given by counsel.
