Summary of Issue: Proof

Decision A-0136.97 Full Text of Decision A-0136.97

Case identical to that of Michel Castonguay. See summary indexed under A-0137. 97.

Decision A-0137.97 Full Text of Decision A-0137.97

Claimant participated in an hour banking scheme. When work slowed down, the claimant’s banked hours were paid to him as a salary. Commission allocated to the weeks in question the earnings the claimant had received from the overtime hours banked. BOR overturned this decision, judging that it was based on figures and other considerations of unknown provenance. FCA found that the Umpire had erred in refusing to intervene on the grounds of the credibility of the witnesses where the BOR had wrongly assessed the evidence: far from being erroneous, as the BOR asserted, all the figures (overtime hours and weeks in which the remuneration had been paid) provided by the employer’s accountant and endorsed by the employer were acknowledged by the claimant. It was unreasonable to see this as a question of credibility when the facts introduced in evidence were not challenged, were consistent and were even acknowledged.

Decision 25395 Full Text of Decision 25395

Monthly commission based partly on managerial work and partly on sales made by consultants allocated by the CEIC to every week of the month. If claimant is unable to demonstrate which amounts are which, the burden being on her to show that the allocation is wrong, the allocation should be restored.

Decision 18242 Full Text of Decision 18242

Commission wholly responsible for causing a delay of 2 years. This has hindered claimant from obtaining original documentary evidence. Discrepancy regarding actual wages earned to be resolved in his favour because of the delay which has prejudiced him from making a full response.

Decision 15206A Full Text of Decision 15206A

The majority decision is erroneous in applying a "without any doubt" test. This is an error of law. It is clear that the correct evidentiary burden is one of "probabilities": is it more probable than not that payments received came out of a pension which was not a private plan.

Decision 15292 Full Text of Decision 15292

The Board accepted the employer's statement of claimant's earnings. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Board had no alternative.

Decision 12127 Full Text of Decision 12127

Issue was earnings; under s. 40, claimant must prove he is entitled.

Decision A-0263.78 Full Text of Decision A-0263.78

The Umpire said that the impossibility of determining which part of 4550$ was due to loss of wages resulted in an impossibility of determining that the sum was income. That reasoning cannot be accepted. It ignores 40(1): claimant not entitled unless he proves entitlement.