Summary of Issue: Duty

Decision 42124 Full Text of Decision 42124

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

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.

Decision 39925 Full Text of Decision 39925

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.

Decision A-1002.96 Full Text of Decision A-1002.96

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.

Decision 24029 Full Text of Decision 24029

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

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.

Decision 18063 Full Text of Decision 18063

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.

Decision 16222 Full Text of Decision 16222

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.

Decision 15033 Full Text of Decision 15033

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.

Decision 14855 Full Text of Decision 14855

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

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.

Decision 12452 Full Text of Decision 12452

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

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

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.

Decision 11655 Full Text of Decision 11655

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

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

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.

Decision 10685 Full Text of Decision 10685

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.