Summary of Issue: Weight Of Statements

Decision 24777 Full Text of Decision 24777

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	anonymous

Summary:

The Board appears to have been greatly influenced by the hearsay statement made to a Commission agent by a third party (claimant bragging on job site that he was collecting UI while working). While many verbal statements are admissible, this one differs, being unattributed. Inadmissible evidence.

Decision 22073 Full Text of Decision 22073

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	anonymous

Summary:

The Board's finding on misconduct is based on a written statement of an anonymous witness. After a long discussion the parties agreed that the whole matter should be referred back to the Board in order, among other things, to determine and identify the author of the statement.

Decision 28600 Full Text of Decision 28600

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	by telephone

Summary:

Boards are not bound by strict rules of evidence. They may receive and accept hearsay evidence and, all the more reason, the employer's evidence submitted via the telephone. The fact that the employer or the employee is present at the hearing while the other is not is not a determining factor.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	right to cross-examine
board of referees	weight of statements	credibility

Decision 25991 Full Text of Decision 25991

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	by telephone

Summary:

Ambiguous statement put on file by CEIC officer after a phone conversation. No evidence that the employer ever saw the statement or had it read to him. This kind of evidence is simply not good enough when a finding of misconduct carries the heavy sanction of loss of many thousands of dollars.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
misconduct	proof
misconduct	harassment

Decision 21971 Full Text of Decision 21971

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	by telephone

Summary:

The report prepared by a CEIC officer of a telephone interview with a representative of the employer, a report which the employer's representative has never seen and has not signed, must be viewed with some scepticism. It was certainly open to the Boardto give it limited weight.

Decision 21964 Full Text of Decision 21964

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	by telephone

Summary:

The principal evidence is an unsigned statement purportedly based on a telephone interview with a representative of the employer. Such statements must be viewed with great reservation, being unsigned, they do not really commit the employer to any particular position.

Decision 21532 Full Text of Decision 21532

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	by telephone

Summary:

The main evidence was the CEIC agent's handwritten summary of a telephone interview with claimant. It was within the Board's right to give limited weight to it. Such summaries, when neither seen or approved by claimants at the time they are made, are intrinsically unreliable.

Decision 19516 Full Text of Decision 19516

summary
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.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	hearsay
board of referees	errors in law	burden of proof

Decision 15216 Full Text of Decision 15216

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	by telephone

Summary:

Ample jurisprudence that Boards should be slow to accept hearsay evidence, as it exists in reports of phone calls written by Commission agents, in the face of credible oral evidence given by claimant to contrary when employer is not present to give direct oral evidence.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:
penalties	knowingly
board of referees	hearings	tape-recording
board of referees	right to be heard	improper hearing
penalties	proof	need for an explanation
voluntarily leaving employment	relations at work	unhappy atmosphere

Decision A-0247.80 Full Text of Decision A-0247.80

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	by telephone

Summary:

According to Umpire, evidence in record that was obtained by telephone is inadmissible, as those persons coudl nto be questioned either by the board or by the judge. Judgment reversed. Judge must consider all the evidence before him, including evidence filed under Reg. 68.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	right to cross-examine
board of referees	hearings	attendance of third party

Decision 15309 Full Text of Decision 15309

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	clarification

Summary:

Claimant simply said that as of 1-6 she was prepared to remove the restrictions. This was not a contradiction of her earlier statement. To say that she had from 10-5 been prepared to accept work which she agreed to accept on 1-6 would contradict but shenever said that.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
voluntarily leaving employment	health reasons

Decision 14876 Full Text of Decision 14876

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	clarification

Summary:

When a claimant gives an explanation concerning the context of an earlier statement, the Board must take the explanation into account in assessing whether the later statements are indeed contradictory to the earlier statements or whether a credible explanation exists. [p. 7]

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:
board of referees	right to be heard	improper hearing
availability for work	job search	effective date
board of referees	weight of statements	contradictory
availability for work	restrictions	or preferences

Decision 13536 Full Text of Decision 13536

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	clarification

Summary:

According to the application, not willing to work immediately as layoff temporary and would be returning to old job. Statement ambiguous and not conclusive. It was open to him to prove that he had in fact conducted a legitimate job search. Nothing prevented him changing his mind.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:
board of referees	natural justice	free of bias
availability for work	job search	how to search
board of referees	errors in law	denial of natural justice

Decision 12672 Full Text of Decision 12672

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	clarification

Summary:

The Board cannot totally bar the door to evidence given in explanation or clarification of previous statements hastily made, leaving aside questions of credibility. If this so-called principle (statements made before carry more weight) is true, one could never hope to give evidence in explanation or clarification. There is no such broad principle applicable to all circumstances except in situations turning strictlyon credibility.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
voluntarily leaving employment	personal reasons	family considerations

Decision 11041 Full Text of Decision 11041

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	clarification

Summary:

Held in the past that it is correct to afford more weight to a 1st statement. Not a steadfast principle. Here the 2 statements are not contradictory. The second is simply an expansion of the first. The Board erred in ascribing too much importance to the1st.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
teaching	availability for work	summer months

Decision 65343 Full Text of Decision 65343

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	contradictory

Summary:

It is a well established principle that, when there is a contradictory statement, the initial statement must be given more weight than the subsequent statement. The Umpire concluded that the issue of physical requirements, which the Board ruled was justification to leave employment, was an after-the-fact issue and ought not to have been given undue weight.

Decision 38483A Full Text of Decision 38483A

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	contradictory

Summary:

Clmt’s early statements contradicted the oral evidence presented before BOR. Umpire stated that earlier statements in proper circumstance may be regarded as more credible than later contradictory statements especially where earlier and later statements are made by the same person and given after clmt became aware of the consequences.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
proof	weight of statements

Decision 39925 Full Text of Decision 39925

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	contradictory

Summary:

Hearings before BOR are informal and BOR may chose such evidence as impressed them which would not necessarily be admissible in a court of law. In front of contradictory evidence presented by employer and claimant, BOR give weight to it as they believe is warranted - that is their area of expertise - credibility of the evidence.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	jurisdiction	assess credibility	duty
proof	weight of statements

Decision A-0557.96 Full Text of Decision A-0557.96

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	contradictory

Summary:

Contradictory evidence in the record. Initial statutory declarations considered most credible. Abundant, consistent case law clearly establishing that a BOR must lend much greater weight to the initial spontaneous declarations made prior to the Commission's decision than to statements made later to justify or improve the claimant's situation in the face of an unfavourable decision from the Commission. Application for judicial review summarily dismissed by the FCA.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
proof	weight of statements
board of referees	errors in law	weight of statements

Decision 37105 Full Text of Decision 37105

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	contradictory

Summary:

Umpire cannot give much weight to the new evidence submitted by the claimant with respect to the alternative employment at Pro Service Equipment & Tape. Throughout his claim, he has never indicated that he left his position with the RCMP because he had a reasonable expectation of alternatvie employment.In fact, in a questionnaire he completed, he specifically answered "no" to the question "did you voluntarily leave your job because of another job offer?

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
voluntarily leaving employment	just cause	definition

Decision 25154 Full Text of Decision 25154

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	contradictory

Summary:

A longstanding and abundant jurisprudence has clearly established that a Board must give much more weight to initial and spontaneous statements made before disentitlement than to subsequent statements made in an attempt to justify the ex-post facto actions which led to to the disentitlement.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	errors in law	weight of statements

Decision 21689 Full Text of Decision 21689

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	contradictory

Summary:

There was also a serious error of law. The Board accepted that as a matter of law earlier statements of a claimant are to be given credibility over later statements. This is not representative of the law. It may be a useful rule of thumb, but that is not an invariable rule.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	observations from the Commission
board of referees	errors in law	burden of proof

Decision 18330 Full Text of Decision 18330

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	contradictory

Summary:

There is no such hard and fast rule entitling anyone to apply "more credence to the first statement" automatically. There could well be reasons of intimidation, inducement, conflict of personalities which could invest the subsequent statement with the greater credibility.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
availability for work	job search	warning before disentitlement

Decision 17855 Full Text of Decision 17855

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	contradictory

Summary:

If the Board felt bound in law to give precedence to the 1st statement, it erred. Frequently, more weight will be given to the 1st statement but there is no conclusive presumption that it must be accepted over a later one. The Board must consider and weigh all evidence.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	constitution of board	member ineligible

Decision 17843 Full Text of Decision 17843

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	contradictory

Summary:

Claimant clearly stated on a form he was not available, and the question was too clear to be misinterpreted. The best evidence would be proof of a job search. The only such evidence, where 4 employer contacts were listed, contains no dates, addresses ornames of people contacted.

Decision 16913 Full Text of Decision 16913

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	contradictory

Summary:

Not available as he retired through incentive program for younger people. The Board was correct: When attempting to rebut initial statements, supportive evidence is required. Not enough to say that an error was made. Had he really wanted to work, he would not have retired early.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
availability for work	incompatible situations	retiring voluntary

Decision 14876 Full Text of Decision 14876

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	contradictory

Summary:

1st explanation likely truer because one has not had time to adjust it to fit UI requirements but often given in response to questions not clear or approached with certain preconceptions. These can lead claimants to answer in restrictive way than truly reflects their intentions. The Commission is overly quick to quote CUB 8741 that the first statements made by an individual have more credibility than those made subsequently. This is a presumption; it is a guideline; but, it is not a rule to be applied mechanically and woodenly.[p. 6]

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:
board of referees	right to be heard	improper hearing
availability for work	job search	effective date
availability for work	restrictions	or preferences
board of referees	weight of statements	clarification

Decision 12738A Full Text of Decision 12738A

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	contradictory

Summary:

Clearly established in case law that in terms of credibility first statement is more candid reflection of situation while subsequent statements will naturally serve claimant's interests and justify claimant's position.

Decision 14084 Full Text of Decision 14084

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	contradictory

Summary:

Board did say that the case law places greater weight on a first statement. Not error of law. Principle itself is not a legal or evidenciary rule. It is a common sense rule that every reasonable person would adopt.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	errors in law	burden of proof

Decision 14000 Full Text of Decision 14000

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	contradictory

Summary:

I have often expressed my disapproval of the so-called first statement rule that has been wrongly applied in cases where the contradictions do not raise a pure issue of credibility. There is no rigid rule of law that a first statement must always be accepted at face value.

Decision 13986 Full Text of Decision 13986

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	contradictory

Summary:

It is also recognized in the case law that a claimant's first statement is generally the one that best reflects the situation at the time while subsequent statements tend rather to justify the claimant once disentitled.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
availability for work	applicability	proof
availability for work	courses	extent of availability required

Decision 12690A Full Text of Decision 12690A

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	contradictory

Summary:

I do not accept the Board's conclusion that claimant has changed his story. His first statement was that he was not sure that the hours of the course were flexible. He later found out that they were. That is not a contradiction.

Decision 13599 Full Text of Decision 13599

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	contradictory

Summary:

This is no more than a rule of thumb at best and I have expressed reservations concerning it on other occasions. There is no hard and fast rule that a statement made before disentitlement is entitled to more credence than one made for explanation or clarification.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	jurisdiction	evidence new

Decision 13566 Full Text of Decision 13566

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	contradictory

Summary:

There is consistent and abundant case law holding that much more weight must be given to an initial statement than to subsequent statements which may, qutie naturally, be self-serving.

Decision 13550 Full Text of Decision 13550

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	contradictory

Summary:

Frequently held in case law that first statement carries greater probative value than subsequent explanations, which often bear the mark of vindication or self-justification.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
voluntarily leaving employment	applicability	unauthorized leave of absence

Decision 13377 Full Text of Decision 13377

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	contradictory

Summary:

The Board made an error of law in treating the normal preference for earlier statements as a rule of law rather than as a rule of thumb. While normally they may be regarded as more reliable, in the context here they were made where the central issue wassomething else.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	errors in law	burden of proof

Decision 13360 Full Text of Decision 13360

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	contradictory

Summary:

While it is true that earlier statements as a general rule may be given more weight than later ones, one must view with great care anwers given on questionnnaires where the purpose of the question is not understood and the questionnaire calls for a brief answer.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment	personal participation

Decision 13115 Full Text of Decision 13115

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	contradictory

Summary:

There is no hard and fast rule of law to the effect that an initial statement made before disentitlement is entitled to more credence than one made later. There is no basis for any bald proposition that a first statement is always admissible in preference to a second statement.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:
availability for work	restrictions	geographical area
availability for work	incompatible situations	good reasons
board of referees	errors in law	not applying jurisprudence

Decision 12577 Full Text of Decision 12577

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	contradictory

Summary:

The Board did not take into account the claimant's explanation. While as a general rule more credence is given to prior statements, these in this case were sufficiently ambiguous that they were susceptible of subjective interpretation. Not a principle of law but a rule of thumb.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
availability for work	restrictions	type of work

Decision 11250 Full Text of Decision 11250

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	contradictory

Summary:

Refer to: A-0780.85

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	issue not recognized	second notice found valid

Decision A-0780.85 Full Text of Decision A-0780.85

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	contradictory

Summary:

According to the Umpire, it is a well-established principle that more weight must be given to the first statement than to a subsequent one where the first statement resulted in disentitlement to benefit. Upheld by FC without comment.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	issue not recognized	second notice found valid

Decision 11556 Full Text of Decision 11556

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	contradictory

Summary:

The law is quite clear, that the first statement made is to be given greater weight than subsequent explanations or comment. CUB 8741 states that one must give more credence to a first declaration even not signed.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
availability for work	applicability	proof
board of referees	weight of statements	not signed

Decision 11451 Full Text of Decision 11451

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	contradictory

Summary:

There is a plethora of decisions in which it is held that those early statements are more credible than later ones, when the later statement maker might be inclined to make an improved statement.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
antedate	misinformation from Commission

Decision 11233 Full Text of Decision 11233

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	contradictory

Summary:

Although there is substance to the doctrine that a claimant's early statements should be given full weight, it does not always and necessarily follow that the message taken by a Commission staff is the message that was intended by the claimant.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
teaching	availability for work	summer months
board of referees	weight of statements	from a Commission agent

Decision 11212 Full Text of Decision 11212

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	contradictory

Summary:

Case law is consistent: more weight must be placed on first statement (even if unsigned, as often happens) than on statement made subsequent to the disentitlement that resulted from first statement.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	not signed

Decision 11215 Full Text of Decision 11215

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	contradictory

Summary:

It has repeatedly been held that more credence should be given to an earlier statement than to a later one and to statements made before disentitlement than those made after. [p. 4]

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
interruption of earnings	conditions required	7 days without work

Decision 11019 Full Text of Decision 11019

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	contradictory

Summary:

Case law on the weight to be given a claimant's own admissions is also well established. Greater weight will be given to an earlier statement than to a subsequent and often more self-serving one.

Decision 10782 Full Text of Decision 10782

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	contradictory

Summary:

At hearing, made attempt to repudiate what he had formally stated; no hesitation in rejecting his subsequent assertions. Case law is consistent: more weight must be given to first statement (even if not signed) than to second.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:
week of unemployment	work without earnings
week of unemployment	availability for work
board of referees	weight of statements	not signed

Decision A-0739.83 Full Text of Decision A-0739.83

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	contradictory

Summary:

No hesitation in rejecting his subsequent statements; the case law is settled: more weight must be given to a 1st statement (even unsigned, which often happens) than to a subsequent statement, according to the Umpire. Upheld by FC without comment.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	not signed

Decision A-0840.97 Full Text of Decision A-0840.97

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	credibility

Summary:

Case identical to A-0839.97. See summary indexed under that reference.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment	minor in extent

Decision A-0839.97 Full Text of Decision A-0839.97

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	credibility

Summary:

Considering the claimant’s duties as president of the company and the amount of money invested, the BOR refused to accept the claimant’s version of the facts regarding the amount of time spent on the business. The Umpire found that the BOR did not err in law in its decision and the BOR’s reasons are consistent with current jurisprudence (reference to Jouan, A-366-94). The FCA ruled that the BOR’s finding is reasonable and, in fact, irrefutable before the Umpire and dismissed the claimant’s appeal.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment	minor in extent

Decision 40377 Full Text of Decision 40377

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	credibility

Summary:

Clmt declared having left his job to travel overseas. The trip being cancelled, he applied for benefits. Before the BOR, he said he had informed the employer of his intention to quit his job and that his employer had dismissed him before his anticipated departure date. BOR took into account only the claimant’s testimony rather than all the evidence and overlooked the clmt’s declaration on his application and that of the employer on theROE which clearly indicated a voluntary quit.

Decision 40214 Full Text of Decision 40214

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	credibility

Summary:

Aware that an Umpire’s opinion cannot be substituted for that of a BOR when an assessment of credibility of the evidence on a question of fact is involved, Umpire deemed that the facts uncontested by the claimants as justification for their dismissal went beyond an assessment of credibility.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
umpires	grounds of appeal	without regard for material
board of referees	issue not recognized	error by board

Decision 39868 Full Text of Decision 39868

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	credibility

Summary:

The employer and claimant both assumed the opposite view of whether firing or dismissal took place. In the absence of evidence supporting the employer's version, the Umpire supported the BOR's decision by giving the benefit of the doubt to the claimant.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
proof	weight of statements

Decision 38254 Full Text of Decision 38254

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	credibility

Summary:

One of the functions of a Board when faced with contradictory evidence, such as here the Employer's statements vary with those of the claimant, their role and duty is to determine the credibility of the conflicting evidence, and to determine what weight to put upon it.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
proof	weight of statements
board of referees	jurisdiction	reason for existence of boards

Decision A-1002.96 Full Text of Decision A-1002.96

summary
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.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	jurisdiction	assess credibility	duty

Decision A-0270.96 Full Text of Decision A-0270.96

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	credibility

Summary:

Umpire ruled that it was up to the Board of Referees to consider the ultimate question, which concerned not only which of the two versions had to be preferred, but whether, even if the employer’s version were set aside, the testimony of the claimant could be relied upon, given his previous statements. The BOR had a duty to weigh the testimony and previous statements with care, but preferred to accept the claimant’s testimony and ignored the contradictions on the record. The FCA agreed with the Umpire’s decision to set aside the decision of the BOR.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	errors in law	decision incomplete	various
board of referees	errors in law	weight of statements

Decision 28600 Full Text of Decision 28600

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	credibility

Summary:

When faced with contradictory testimonies on the part of the employer and the employee, the mere fact that one is present at the hearing and the other not should not be a determining factor. The Board is free to deem one more credible that the other.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	right to cross-examine
board of referees	weight of statements	by telephone

Decision 24370A Full Text of Decision 24370A

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	credibility

Summary:

The Board simply concludes by finding that the employer was apparently more credible than the employee. There is no explanation for how and why the Board came to this conclusion. The Board had the duty to give some examples or justification why. The absence of such finding is an error in law.

Decision 21528 Full Text of Decision 21528

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	credibility

Summary:

The Board did not have regard to claimant's signed statement that farming was his main livelihood, that he worked at it all day. The Board adopted his statements, in the telephone hearing, without regard to the fact that he had not worked off the farm during the farming season.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment	farming	self-employed
umpires	grounds of appeal	without regard for material

Decision 18905 Full Text of Decision 18905

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	credibility

Summary:

Gave several reasons for quitting his job in 1st statement and health reasons specifically excluded. Contradicted himself later and said main reason was medical. Credibility weakened to the point where the Board could properly doubt the truth of the other reasons for quitting.

Decision 18671 Full Text of Decision 18671

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	credibility

Summary:

A number of documents in the file such as the lease and a document form the protonotary testify to the insured person's involvement in the company. By giving more value to evidence contradicting that, the Board did not take account of the points brought to its knowledge.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
umpires	grounds of appeal	without regard for material

Decision 18063 Full Text of Decision 18063

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	credibility

Summary:

The Commission argues that it is highly unlikely that an officer would give claimant the advice which she alleges she was given since it is not in keeping with the procedures. The Board must weigh this evidence of standard procedures against the credibility of her explanation.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
penalties	misinformation from commission
penalties	proof
board of referees	statement of facts	not to be read strictly
board of referees	weight of statements	under oath
penalties	proof	need for an explanation
board of referees	jurisdiction	assess credibility	duty

Decision 15034 Full Text of Decision 15034

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	credibility

Summary:

Referees ought to scrutinize employer's statements with every bit as much care as they scrutinize employees' statements. If they initially approach employees' statements with a grain of skepticism, so they ought also to approach employers' statements. No double standard.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	from employer

Decision 14833 Full Text of Decision 14833

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	credibility

Summary:

When assessing the conflicting evidence of individuals, it is not enough to focus on their demeanour (pleasant or unpleasant) and appearance. One should ask "what makes sense in the situation".

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:
board of referees	observations from the Commission
board of referees	right to be heard	improper hearing
voluntarily leaving employment	applicability	tantamount to dismissal
board of referees	jurisdiction	comments on conduct of hearing

Decision A0603.06 Full Text of Decision A0603.06

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	documentary evidence

Summary:

The BOR was entitled to make findings of fact on the basis of all the evidence and in doing so, it obviously discounted the documentary evidence submitted by the applicant in favour of his earlier statements to the Commission.

Decision A-0355.96 Full Text of Decision A-0355.96

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	documentary evidence

Summary:

Claimant criticized the Umpire for substituting himself for the BOR in assessing the facts. Criticism not warranted according to the FCA. BOR's decision very terse because it was based solely on the claimant's testimony at the hearing and completely ignored other evidence in the record. BOR could not dismiss this evidence without grounds and its failure to give an explanation was an error that entitled the Umpire to settle the dispute in fact and in law.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	errors in law	burden of proof
board of referees	errors in law	statement of facts required

Decision 23647 Full Text of Decision 23647

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	documentary evidence

Summary:

If a negative inference is to be drawn from the fact that claimant has produced no documentary evidence to support his explanation, this has to be done in the context of assessing what kind of documentary evidence he could reasonably be expected to produce. If none exists, not proper to require it.

Decision 21503 Full Text of Decision 21503

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	from a Commission agent

Summary:

The Board was mistaken in setting aside a questionnaire saying that it had not been completed by the insured herself. The information written down by a CEIC agent, within the context of an investigation concerning an application, is quite probative unless serious evidence to the contrary.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	errors in law	burden of proof

Decision A-0044.91 Full Text of Decision A-0044.91

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	from a Commission agent

Summary:

Claimant unsuccessfully contended that evidence consisting of some exhibits being notes of a CEIC employee of inquiries made by that employee, the main part being notes of an interview with claimant herself, was inadmissible pursuant to ss. 30(10) of the Canada Evidence Act. No substantive rule of evidence or of natural justice is involved here but merely a question of how a particular piece of evidence shall be received. This is a matter of procedure within the meaning of that word in ss. 64(6) to be determined by the chairperson of the Board.

Decision 15000B Full Text of Decision 15000B

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	from a Commission agent

Summary:

Refer to: A-0044.91

Decision 16621 Full Text of Decision 16621

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	from a Commission agent

Summary:

The attorney for the insured called into question the content of the statement because it was not signed by his client and constituted hearsay. Argument rejected; the insured is identified by his driver's license, a document that is acceptable according to MILLS.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	not signed

Decision 13091 Full Text of Decision 13091

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	from a Commission agent

Summary:

The claimant signed each page of the report of the interview; she obviously read the report and agreed with it; if there were any statements in the report that were wrong, it was for her to have changed them before she signed.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
availability for work	restrictions	type of work

Decision 12754 Full Text of Decision 12754

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	from a Commission agent

Summary:

Reports of interviews with claimants which are recorded in a cryptic and selective manner are not very convincing evidence.

Decision 11756 Full Text of Decision 11756

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	from a Commission agent

Summary:

The report bears the signature of the claimant along side that of the interviewer and confirms that he "read and received copy of it and agrees with the content". It must therefore be generally taken to accurately reflect his statements made at the time.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
availability for work	job search	as a requirement
availability for work	applicability	definition

Decision 11233 Full Text of Decision 11233

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	from a Commission agent

Summary:

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	contradictory
teaching	availability for work	summer months

Decision 23929 Full Text of Decision 23929

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	from doctors

Summary:

A number of CUBs make reference to a general rule that more weight may be given to earlier statements than to later statements made after claimant is advised of disentitlement. That practice was here followed by the Board in relation to the 2 letters from the attending physician. I find no error.

Decision 20194 Full Text of Decision 20194

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	from doctors

Summary:

The Board has made a finding of fact supported by the evidence; it has also drawn certain negative conclusions as to the credibility of the 2nd medical opinion. The Board preferred the certificate of the 1st physician who had originally examined claimant. This was proper.

Decision 10688 Full Text of Decision 10688

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	from doctors

Summary:

Faced with expert certificates, self-serving statements and testimony varying in relevance, board must exercise good judgment, consider all the evidence, give all evidence the weight is deserves, sift the evidence and draw conclusions.

Decision A-0344.05 Full Text of Decision A-0344.05

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	from employer

Summary:

The BOR concluded that the harassment committed by the claimant, including sexual harassment, was not wilful or deliberate despite the evidence presented by the employer. The Court stated that the BOR could not ignore relevant evidence or reject it without explaining the reasons for doing so or for which he felt he was warranted in ignoring such evidence. In this case, this evidence concerned the reasons for the claimant's dismissal, the numerous warnings he received in connection with his misconduct, a suspension that was applied and the incidents which ultimately led to the dismissal. Such a conclusion on the part of the BOR appears to be either arbitrary and abusive or mistaken in law in the absence of explanations that may have justified it.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	errors in law	weight of statements
misconduct	harassment

Decision 22179 Full Text of Decision 22179

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	from employer

Summary:

The collective agreement was not made part of the evidence. All we have is a hearsay statement of somebody's interpretation of what the collective agreement said with respect to a very important point. While this evidence may be admissible, it is entitled to very little, if any, tangible weight.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
earnings	allocation	from week of layoff

Decision 16791 Full Text of Decision 16791

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	from employer

Summary:

There is considerable jurisprudence that when there is a conflict between the oral testimony of a claimant before the Board and the second hand hearsay evidence taken by telephone from ex-employer, the direct oral evidence of claimant should generally be given more weight.

Decision 15252 Full Text of Decision 15252

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	from employer

Summary:

An employer is not entitled to be presumed more credible than an employee. Credibility is to be found upon the material before the Board. Neither side starts with any favourable or unfavourable presumption of credibility.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	observations from the Commission

Decision 15034 Full Text of Decision 15034

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	from employer

Summary:

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	credibility

Decision 14849 Full Text of Decision 14849

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	from employer

Summary:

None of the persons to whom the Commission officer spoke knew claimant or had any first hand knowledge of what had taken place. When claimant attempted to find those who were there when he worked, he was unable to do so. Claimant's evidence must be preferred. The Board erred.

Decision 14686 Full Text of Decision 14686

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	from employer

Summary:

I found statements of claimant to be confusing, to be viewed with caution due to self-interest. Those from former employer are relatively clear and no motive of self-interest. No apparent history of tension which would lead employer to give an unfavourable account.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	issue not recognized	error by board
board of referees	statement of facts	as a requirement

Decision 14569 Full Text of Decision 14569

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	from employer

Summary:

Just as is frequently held that a first statement must be given more weight, the same should apply to the employer's second statement when he stated that claimant would have been fired anyway on the sole incident of beer sale.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
misconduct	proof

Decision 11717 Full Text of Decision 11717

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	from employer

Summary:

If the employer persists in its refusal to produce the field diary then this stubborn and intransigent attitude is something which should weigh in claimant's favour and make suspect to some degree at least the employer's hearsay evidence of earnings.

Decision 23053 Full Text of Decision 23053

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	from representative

Summary:

While it is not necessary for the claimant to give her explanation personally to the Board, the Board is entitled to give any such explanation greater weight if it is given to them directly by the claimant rather than filtered through the words of her lawyer.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	statement of facts	definition

Decision 19425 Full Text of Decision 19425

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	from representative

Summary:

I reject counsel's argument that allegations in a letter supporting an umpire appeal become evidence of the facts because they are uncontradicted. The acceptable of such a novel and ingenious argument, whether tacitly or otherwise, would have startling and grave consequences.

Decision 18989 Full Text of Decision 18989

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	from spouse

Summary:

Argument: the spouse was interviewed to determine her rights to UI, her communications with her husband were privileged and her statement not allowed in a court of law. MILLS is not a direct answer to whether spousal privilege should be recognized. Common law not applicable.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
interruption of earnings	conditions required	7 days without work

Decision 12897 Full Text of Decision 12897

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	from third party

Summary:

Written allegations made by her embittered brother-in-law and her estranged husband held not to be strong evidence; these were not tested by cross-examination.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment	control of working hours
week of unemployment	contract of services

Decision A-0468.00 Full Text of Decision A-0468.00

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	hearsay

Summary:

The Court reiterated that the Boards of Referees are not bound by the strict rules of evidence applicable to criminal or civil courts, and may therefore, receive and accept hearsay evidence.

Decision 37455C Full Text of Decision 37455C

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	hearsay

Summary:

Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0468.00

Decision 42394 Full Text of Decision 42394

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	hearsay

Summary:

Evidence of misconduct in claimant's case was limited to officer's notes from telephone conversation with employer. BOR gave preference to hearsay in taking employer's version over that of claimant. Although, hearsay may be admissible before a BOR, doctrine always gives precedence to direct testimony.

Decision 25506 Full Text of Decision 25506

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	hearsay

Summary:

The CEIC was not obliged to produce those witnesses at the Board hearing; nevertheless the Board could quite properly give more weight to the viva voce evidence of persons whose testimony it had an opportunity to test by questioning, than to second-hand statements of persons not present.

Decision 21977 Full Text of Decision 21977

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	hearsay

Summary:

The case law has clearly established that Boards may accept hearsay evidence. In accepting that evidence however, the Board must respect the rules of natural justice, which means that claimant be given an opportunity to comment on and contradict that evidence.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
umpires	grounds of appeal	capricious finding	req'd

Decision 19516 Full Text of Decision 19516

summary
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.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	by telephone
board of referees	errors in law	burden of proof

Decision 16222 Full Text of Decision 16222

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	hearsay

Summary:

Not a trial in the nature of the normal criminal or civil process of courts. Not bound by strict rules of evidence. Hearsay evidence may be accepted. Not bound to accept facts as stated by claimant or those as stated by employer.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	right to cross-examine
board of referees	jurisdiction	reason for existence of boards
board of referees	jurisdiction	assess credibility	duty

Decision 14983 Full Text of Decision 14983

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	hearsay

Summary:

It is accepted that hearings before Boards are administrative hearings before administrative tribunals, which are not bound by the strict rules of hearsay evidence. The issue of hearsay in any particular case appears to be a matter of weight rather thannon-admissibility.

Decision 13366 Full Text of Decision 13366

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	hearsay

Summary:

The Board should not readily ignore direct, oral evidence, which is subject to cross-examination, in favour of indirect hearsay that is subject to no cross-examination.

Decision 12516 Full Text of Decision 12516

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	hearsay

Summary:

It is accepted as well that Boards of Referees, like other administrative tribunals, are not bound by the strict rules of evidence applicable in a court of law but that they can receive and accept hearsay evidence and assess it. [p. 9]

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:
board of referees	natural justice	free of bias
board of referees	right to be heard	improper hearing
umpires	grounds of appeal	selection of one ground
umpires	grounds of appeal	not a trial de novo

Decision 11301A Full Text of Decision 11301A

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	hearsay

Summary:

Boards are not courts bound by the strict rules of evidence and it is well established that they may receive and act on hearsay. I agree that Boards should be cognizant of the weaknesses inherent in hearsay evidence.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	constitution of board	change of members

Decision 12281 Full Text of Decision 12281

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	hearsay

Summary:

Nothing prohibits the admissibility of hearsay evidence where such evidence can be fairly regarded as reliable. In admitting hearsay evidence the Board must observe the rules of natural justice, but this does not mean that it must be tested by cross-examination. [p. 5-6]

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:
board of referees	right to cross-examine
board of referees	natural justice	notice of hearing
availability for work	applicability	rationale
availability for work	applicability	definition

Decision 12127 Full Text of Decision 12127

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	hearsay

Summary:

Documents that are not certified copies, and hearsay, are admissible.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
earnings	proof

Decision 11915 Full Text of Decision 11915

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	hearsay

Summary:

Major argument was that the Board based its decision on hearsay evidence. The appeal cannot succeed on that ground. MILLS referred to.

Decision 11746 Full Text of Decision 11746

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	hearsay

Summary:

Context: misconduct. Second ground also cannot be upheld, as Federal Court of Appeal has clearly held that a board may admit and accept hearsay evidence. See MILLS.

Decision 11346 Full Text of Decision 11346

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	hearsay

Summary:

Evidence mere hearsay according to insured. See MILLS. Very clear: the deathknell has sounded for this argument.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
misconduct	proof
misconduct	obstinance

Decision 10720 Full Text of Decision 10720

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	hearsay

Summary:

Very difficult to accept conclusion that 2nd-hand hearsay from employer not subject to cross-examination to be preferred to oral statements before Board by claimant and witness. Not to be penalized by absence of employer. Direct conflict here, erroneousfinding of fact.

Decision 10674 Full Text of Decision 10674

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	hearsay

Summary:

While according to MILLS the board may admit and accept hearsay evidence, it must still be conclusive and consistent with the admissions of the person reporting it. Hearsay reported by the employer inconsistent with employer's own account.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
misconduct	proof

Decision A-1873.83 Full Text of Decision A-1873.83

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	hearsay

Summary:

The Umpire wrote, "I do not see how any Board can be asked to make a finding of misconduct, except upon some direct evidence of it". We are all of opinion that this is an error of law. Boards, like other administrative tribunals, are not bound by the strict rules of evidence applicable in criminal or civil courts; they may, therefore, receive and accept hearsay evidence.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
misconduct	proof
board of referees	errors in law	burden of proof

Decision 46680 Full Text of Decision 46680

summary
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.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
proof	weight of statements

Decision 29070 Full Text of Decision 29070

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	interview without counsel

Summary:

Counsel alleges that the CEIC investigator should not have obtained such a damaging statement from the claimant without her having had the privilege of a lawyer. Quebec and Canadian charters examined as well as judgments dealing with other laws.

Decision 23946 Full Text of Decision 23946

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	interview without counsel

Summary:

May I first point out that the fact that no counsel was there with the claimant does not derogate from the validity and legality of the interview? The SC, in Dehghani vs. the Minister of EI, decided that the principle of fundamental justice was not violated by a claimant not having counsel present.

Decision 25943A Full Text of Decision 25943A

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	not signed

Summary:

Refer to: A-0444.95

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
proof	weight of statements	not signed

Decision A-0444.95 Full Text of Decision A-0444.95

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	not signed

Summary:

Statutory declarations never signed by the claimant. No explanation why the claimant did not wish to sign them. No other substantiating evidence. The FCA found that there was no evidence on which the BOR could reasonably base its decision.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
proof	weight of statements	not signed

Decision 16621 Full Text of Decision 16621

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	not signed

Summary:

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	from a Commission agent

Decision 12658 Full Text of Decision 12658

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	not signed

Summary:

Although statement was not signed by claimant, Federal Court of Appeal has held that such document is admissible without further formality.

Decision 11556 Full Text of Decision 11556

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	not signed

Summary:

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
availability for work	applicability	proof
board of referees	weight of statements	contradictory

Decision 11212 Full Text of Decision 11212

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	not signed

Summary:

Case law is consistent: more weight must be placed on first statement (even if unsigned, as often happens) than on statement made subsequent to the disentitlement that resulted from first statement.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	contradictory

Decision 10782 Full Text of Decision 10782

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	not signed

Summary:

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:
week of unemployment	work without earnings
week of unemployment	availability for work
board of referees	weight of statements	contradictory

Decision A-0739.83 Full Text of Decision A-0739.83

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	not signed

Summary:

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	contradictory

Decision A-1044.96 Full Text of Decision A-1044.96

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	oral or written

Summary:

Umpire criticized the BOR for having ignored the claimant’s written statements and only considered the explanations that the claimant gave at the hearing. FCA found that this criticism was unjustified because the stenographic notes indicate that the BOR confronted the claimant with his written statements before accepting his oral explanations. Consequently, the Umpire could not find that the BOR had ignored the written statements.

Decision 25135 Full Text of Decision 25135

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	oral or written

Summary:

The fact that the board of referees chose to concede more credibility to the employer's written statement than to the claimant's oral deposition does not constitute an error in law. The board is the trier of facts and the documents on file allowed it to decide accordingly.

Decision 23544 Full Text of Decision 23544

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	oral or written

Summary:

While direct testimony (claimant at hearing) before the primary finder of fact is generally to be preferred in such matters (misconduct), the Board is not bound by legal and technical rules of evidence. It was entitled to rely on the evidence that it chose to believe (written statement from others).

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
misconduct	harassment

Decision 15734 Full Text of Decision 15734

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	oral or written

Summary:

A written document is better evidence than a thousand verbal statements. There is also a rule of evidence to the effect that it is only by exception that oral evidence can contradict written evidence.

Decision 12707 Full Text of Decision 12707

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	oral or written

Summary:

Generally, written assertions of facts, about which the writer has never been directly questioned by the Board, will carry less weight than oral evidence presented with respect to that fact.

Decision 18063 Full Text of Decision 18063

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	under oath

Summary:

In STAMBERG, it was held that in the context of that case the Board had no valid reason to ignore the sworn declaration. While the Board is not authorized to ignore statutory declarations, neither must they accept them uncritically. Boards are required to weigh such evidence.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
penalties	misinformation from commission
penalties	proof
board of referees	statement of facts	not to be read strictly
board of referees	weight of statements	credibility
penalties	proof	need for an explanation
board of referees	jurisdiction	assess credibility	duty

Decision A-1498.84 Full Text of Decision A-1498.84

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	under oath

Summary:

The Board had no valid reason to ignore the sworn declaration of the claimant to the effect that he had been given wrong information by an employee of the Commission. The Board, contrary to what was decided by the Umpire, erred in law in ignoring that evidence.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:
antedate	misinformation from Commission
antedate	misinformation from Commission	credibility
board of referees	errors in law	burden of proof

Decision 11355 Full Text of Decision 11355

summary
Issue:	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees	weight of statements	under oath

Summary:

Part of the evidence was the oral testimony of the claimant taken by the Board under the sanctity of oath. Under the circumstances, it is not enough for the Commission to blithely assert that the Board's finding was based on credibility.

other summary
Other Issue(s):	Sub-Issue 1:	Sub-Issue 2:	Sub-Issue 3:
antedate	misinformation from Commission	credibility

Report a problem on this page

Date modified:: 2019-03-01