Summary of Issue: Duty


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
Date modified: