Summary of Issue: Change Of Members

Decision 26656 Full Text of Decision 26656

Refer to: A-0100.95

Decision A-0100.95 Full Text of Decision A-0100.95

New hearing held by the same members of the Board. The claimant alleges that the Board is not impartial. Rejection of the appeal in the first instance does not lead to reasonable fear of partiality in the mind of an impartial, reasonable and well-informed observer.

Decision 26374 Full Text of Decision 26374

Since the first Board which was seized of the matter simply adjourned it to be resumed after getting certain information from the Commission, it ought to have been composed of the same personnel which heard the initial evidence. That it did not do so is fatal to the validity of the decision.

Decision 18586 Full Text of Decision 18586

At issue: 2nd hearing by Board. I am satisfied that if 2 members of a 3-member Board of Referees had once decided there was no merit to the claimant's allegations, they should not, once again, and even with a third person, rehear an appeal by a claimant.

Decision 18003 Full Text of Decision 18003

The hearing before the Board took place in 2 distinct sessions. One of the members only participated in the 2nd hearing and did not hear all the evidence; this deficiency was not covered by the insured waiver. That would be sufficient to reverse the decision.

Decision 15123 Full Text of Decision 15123

The Board of Referees was composed differently at the re-hearing. Given that it was impossible to bring the same Board together again, it can be clearly seen that the hearing was resumed in full, and that only the chairman was replaced. Furthermore, the argument was not raised at the re-hearing.

Decision 13780B Full Text of Decision 13780B

Composition of Board different from that at original hearing. The law is clear that in such circumstances consent to a change in membership must be obtained by claimant. The proceedings, although conducted inadvertently, are a nullity.

Decision 14489 Full Text of Decision 14489

Every person is entitled to having the complete evidence heard by a bench composed of the same members as those who make the decision. A second bench composed of different members hearing new evidence is prohibited.

Decision 13787 Full Text of Decision 13787

Since a rehearing was granted, it must of necessity be reheard by the same members. The fact that [one member was not the same] is a denial of natural justice. The hearing was a rehearing, not a new hearing.

Decision 11493A Full Text of Decision 11493A

Based on new facts, second board reversed decision of first. "Violation of principles of natural justice by hearings before differently constituted boards."

Decision 11741A Full Text of Decision 11741A

Second decision characterized as illegal: board must be composed of same members for decision to be varied on presentation of new facts [under s. 86].

Decision 10598B Full Text of Decision 10598B

Case reheard by a board composed of one member different from the first 3. Decision set aside and case to be heard by the same 3 or, if impossible, 3 different members.

Decision 12933 Full Text of Decision 12933

At new hearing, one of members was replaced; board therefore reheard case in its entirety. Principle of natural justice violated and case referred back to new board.

Decision 12885 Full Text of Decision 12885

It is my belief that you cannot have a rehearing or a continued hearing unless the Board consists of the same members. Not within my jurisdiction to order that a female form part of a Board, but I so recommend.

Decision 12642 Full Text of Decision 12642

New hearing chaired by different chairman from first. All evidence must be heard by tribunal composed of same members, not one where members have been transposed along the way.

Decision 11301A Full Text of Decision 11301A

Case referred back to Board by Umpire. The implication is that it was to the same Board. But direction not specific and no intrinsic reason why one or other. Heard by new Board. Claimant did not raise any objection at the time. No prejudice. Fair hearing.

Decision 12280 Full Text of Decision 12280

Case adjourned and chairman then died. New chairman agreed to by insured. Under Reg. 62(5), chairman is key person [and presence essential]. Consent of claimant cannot confer jurisdiction where none exists.

Decision 12236 Full Text of Decision 12236

When Umpire refers case back for "redetermination", not necessary that case be redetermined by same board. If case is referred back for additional evidence to be heard, it must be same board.

Decision A-1716.83 Full Text of Decision A-1716.83

The Umpire found that there was a denial of natural justice because the Board was differently constituted at rehearing. It is clear that the first Board did not receive evidence touching merits of case but only whether to grant an adjournment. So Board properly constituted.

Decision A-0553.83 Full Text of Decision A-0553.83

When a hearing is adjourned to enable the CEIC to produce additional evidence, it must then either be continued before the same Board of Referees, or be completely redone without any regard for what happened the previous time.