| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
denial of natural justice |
|
Summary:
Suggestion was made in the FCA that the Commission had provided insights to BOR with information as to the content of questions that a claimant is required to answer on the Teledec system. This hardly satifies the fairness test. The BOR is an independent tribunal separate and apart from the Commission. Information about questions and answers specific to a particular case must be put before the BOR in that case and a claimant must know what simple question it is alleged he wrongly answered, in order that he have a fair opportunity to provide an explanation.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
natural justice |
free of bias |
|
Summary:
Suggestion was made in the FCA that the Commission had provided insights to BOR with information as to the content of questions that a claimant is required to answer on the Teledec system. This hardly satifies the fairness test. The BOR is an independent tribunal separate and apart from the Commission. Information about questions and answers specific to a particular case must be put before the BOR in that case and a claimant must know what simple question it is alleged he wrongly answered, in order that he have a fair opportunity to provide an explanation.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
penalties |
knowingly |
|
Summary:
Claimant used the Teledec method of reporting and failed to disclose all of his earnings. A penalty was imposed but the questions answered by claimant via the Teledic system were never in evidence before the BOR or the Umpire. The BOR was simply of the view that the same "five question pattern" was asked on the Teledec system as appears on a reporting card and the Umpire accepted it. The FCA found that the BOR based its decision on a material finding of fact without the necessary evidential underpinning and that the onus of proving the knowing misrepresentation had not been met.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
proof |
documents missing |
|
Summary:
Claimant used the Teledec method of reporting and failed to disclose all of his earnings. A penalty was imposed but the questions answered by claimant via the Teledic system were never in evidence before the BOR or the Umpire. The BOR was simply of the view that the same "five question pattern" was asked on the Teledec system as appears on a reporting card and the Umpire accepted it. The FCA found that the BOR based its decision on a material finding of fact without the necessary evidential underpinning and that the onus of proving the knowing misrepresentation had not been met.
