| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
credibility |
|
Summary:
Claimant alleged that the Board of Referees violated the principles of natural justice and erred in law in giving preference to hearsay evidence over his oral testimony before the BOR. Umpire found that the BOR was not bound by the technical rules of evidence with apply before the ordinary courts of law and that it may consequently receive and accept hearsay evidence. FCA upheld the Umpire’s decision.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
assess credibility |
duty |
Summary:
Umpire confirmed that, with respect to credibility and appreciation of the facts, it is not up to the Umpire to substitute his decision for that of the Board of Referees when, as in this case, the claimant failed to prove that the BOR based its decision or order on an erroneous finding of fact that it made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it. The BOR’s decision was fully based on significant items of evidence in the file. FCA upheld the Umpire’s decision.
