Decision 42124
Full Text of Decision 42124
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
jurisdiction |
assess credibility |
duty |
Summary:
Credibility determinations are the centre of the role of a BOR. It is the BOR that has witnesses before it and has the opportunity to observe the demeanour of the witnesses. In the absence of evidence that the Board ignored evidence that was before it or took into account irrelevant considerations in arriving at a credibility determination, it is not open to an Umpire, on appeal from a decision of the BOR, to interfere with a credibility determination.
Decision A-0418.97
Full Text of Decision A-0418.97
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
jurisdiction |
assess credibility |
duty |
Summary:
Commission employees need not present themselves for cross-examination before a BOR where alleged admissions by claimants are found within notes prepared by the Commission. The BOR is entitled to make a specific finding that a claimant is a credible witness notwithstanding conflicting statements found within notes taken by Commission staff during an interview. In the end, it is the role of the BOR to determine what weight, if any, should be given to them.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
week of unemployment |
full working week |
|
|
week of unemployment |
minor in extent |
|
|
board of referees |
hearings |
attendance of third party |
|
penalties |
proof |
|
|
Decision 39925
Full Text of Decision 39925
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
jurisdiction |
assess credibility |
duty |
Summary:
Hearings before BOR are informal and BOR may chose such evidence as impresses them which would not necessarily be admissible in a court of law. Faced with contradictory evidence presented by employer and claimant, BOR give the 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: |
proof |
weight of statements |
|
|
board of referees |
weight of statements |
contradictory |
|
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 |
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.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
weight of statements |
credibility |
|
Decision 24029
Full Text of Decision 24029
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
jurisdiction |
assess credibility |
duty |
Summary:
Whereas in this case there are conflicting accounts of the facts by the claimant and the employer, the question is essentially one of credibility. Here I cannot say that the issue of credibility was resolved. I must, therefore, substitute my conclusion for that of the Board.
Decision 20431
Full Text of Decision 20431
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
jurisdiction |
assess credibility |
duty |
Summary:
Boards are entitled to draw inferences from facts which are put before them. They also are not required to apply the strict rules of evidence that would pertain in a court of law; a much more informal and flexible approach is allowed.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
week of unemployment |
shareholders |
|
|
week of unemployment |
corporate veil |
|
|
Decision 18063
Full Text of Decision 18063
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
jurisdiction |
assess credibility |
duty |
Summary:
One way to test the credibility is for Board members to question the claimant directly, themselves, with respect to her explanation. The Board cannot be faulted for treating self-serving, after the fact statements with some degree of scepticism.
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 |
|
board of referees |
weight of statements |
credibility |
|
penalties |
proof |
need for an explanation |
|
Decision 16222
Full Text of Decision 16222
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
jurisdiction |
assess credibility |
duty |
Summary:
The proceedings are intended to provide an expeditious and inexpensive process for appeal. Hearsay evidence may be accepted. There is no principle that the Board must accept the facts as stated by claimant or those as stated by the 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 |
weight of statements |
hearsay |
|
Decision 15033
Full Text of Decision 15033
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
jurisdiction |
assess credibility |
duty |
Summary:
Oral statements by claimant regarding job search efforts completely ignored by Board. Referees, so long as they do not act capriciously or perversely, may believe or disbelieve a claimant, but they may not ignore what claimant says.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
availability for work |
job search |
incomplete information |
|
Decision 14855
Full Text of Decision 14855
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
jurisdiction |
assess credibility |
duty |
Summary:
The question of credibility is one for the Board. The Board should have been directed to determine for itself whether it believed the claimant or the employer, which story made most sense in the light of material on file and oral evidence.
Decision 13240
Full Text of Decision 13240
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
jurisdiction |
assess credibility |
duty |
Summary:
That it is necessary for the Board to weigh the credibility of the evidence presented. Exactly. That is indeed a highly important function of the referees.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
decision by another body |
|
Decision 12452
Full Text of Decision 12452
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
jurisdiction |
assess credibility |
duty |
Summary:
The Board, being an administrative tribunal, is not bound by the strict rules of evidence which apply in criminal or civil proceedings. To the extent that the employer's evidence conflicted with that of claimant, it was certainly within the competence of the Board to decide which was more credible.
Decision 12062
Full Text of Decision 12062
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
jurisdiction |
assess credibility |
duty |
Summary:
Its function is to make the appropriate findings of fact or draw the necessary inferences from the evidence before it and then apply the law to those facts.
Decision 11823
Full Text of Decision 11823
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
jurisdiction |
assess credibility |
duty |
Summary:
While the claimant disputes much of this evidence, it is well established that credibility is an issue for the Board to assess. The Board impliedly found the employer's credibility to be weightier than that of the claimant.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
misconduct |
leaving early |
|
|
Decision 11655
Full Text of Decision 11655
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
jurisdiction |
assess credibility |
duty |
Summary:
The fact that the Board chose to accept the earlier version of the facts given by the claimant rather than the later version is a discretionary matter properly exercisable by the Board and the choice was properly exercised.
Decision 11476
Full Text of Decision 11476
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
jurisdiction |
assess credibility |
duty |
Summary:
It is entirely open to the Board to believe the claimant or to disbelieve her, and also to make a decision on the basis of what it considers to be reasonable in the circumstances.
Decision 10716
Full Text of Decision 10716
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
jurisdiction |
assess credibility |
duty |
Summary:
Duration of work stoppage is often question of fact. Facts are submitted at adversarial hearing before tribunal that must determine which are most important and which version to adopt. This is essence of board's role.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
settlement of dispute |
|
Decision 10685
Full Text of Decision 10685
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
jurisdiction |
assess credibility |
duty |
Summary:
Decision may seem questionable based on record. Credibility assessed at hearing; board believed insured. Responsiblity of board to do this. It is like jury and trier of fact. Judge may not substitute self for jury.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|