| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
adjournment of hearing |
|
Summary:
An adjournment was first requested in Nov. 94. Then a statutory declaration was filed stating that the claimant would be back in the country only in June 95. A hearing date was set for August 9, 1995. One day prior the hearing, a fax requesting another adjournment was filed. Request denied and the BOR proceeded with the case. Umpire ruled that there was no obligation on the BOR to try and reach the claimant by telephone as they could rely on the statutory declaration that the claimant and her husband would be back by June. The FCA simply refused to interfere with the Umpire's review of the BOR discretion to refuse another adjournment. No denial of natural justice.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
denial of natural justice |
|
Summary:
An adjournment was first requested in Nov. 94. Then a statutory declaration was filed stating that the claimant would be back in the country only in June 95. A hearing date was set for August 9, 1995. One day prior the hearing, a fax requesting another adjournment was filed. Request denied and the BOR proceeded with the case. Umpire ruled that there was no obligation on the BOR to try and reach the claimant by telephone as they could rely on the statutory declaration that the claimant and her husband would be back by June. The FCA simply refused to interfere with the Umpire's review of the BOR discretion to refuse another adjournment. No denial of natural justice.
