Summary of Issue: Weight Of Statements

Decision A-0344.05 Full Text of Decision A-0344.05

The BOR concluded that the harassment committed by the appellant, including sexual harassment, was not wilful or deliberate despite the evidence presented by the employer. The Court stated that the BOR could not ignore relevant evidence or reject it without explaining the reasons for doing so or for which he felt he was warranted in ignoring such evidence. In this case, this evidence concerned the reasons for the claimant's dismissal, the numerous warnings he received in connection with his misconduct, a suspension that was applied and the incidents which ultimately led to the dismissal. Such a conclusion on the part of the BOR appears to be either arbitrary and abusive or mistaken in law in the absence of explanations that may have justified it.

Decision A-0417.03 Full Text of Decision A-0417.03

The claimant was disqualified for misconduct. The Court found that the BOR made its decision without proper regard for the material before it. It failed to reconcile the contradiction in the testimonies of the employer, one stating the claimant had been terminated, the other testifying voluntary leaving.

Decision 55565 Full Text of Decision 55565

Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0417.03

Decision A-0111.98 Full Text of Decision A-0111.98

FCA summarily dismissed the appeal in the following terms: "Considering the brevity of the reasons given by the BOR for its decision and its failure to consider an important admission made by the claimant in a sworn statement, the Umpire had the power and the duty to intervene."

Decision 47005 Full Text of Decision 47005

The BOR did not take into account all the evidence before it and rendered a decision based mainly on the claimant's testimony at the hearing. Error in law, according to the Umpire. FCA decision in Boucher (A-0270.96) cited.

Decision 41355 Full Text of Decision 41355

Claimant was caught asleep on the job by a supervisor, who submitted that this is wilful misconduct. BOR found that each witness was credible and decided that the claimant should have the advantage. Umpire found that based on the evidence, claimant had a history of insubordination, particularly sleeping on the job. He concluded that BOR has made in error of law and of fact and that there was misconduct on the claimant's part.

Decision 40075 Full Text of Decision 40075

Penalty imposed for making 20 false or misleading statements. BOR reversed this decision. According to the evidence, the claimant knew he had to declare his income from his business, but did not do so because he and his family needed money. Umpire found that the UI Program was not designed finance individuals in financial difficulties. BOR thus erred in refusing to accept the documentary evidence on the record, and thereby rendered a decision made in perverse or capricious manner without regard for the material before it.

Decision A-0235.97 Full Text of Decision A-0235.97

Umpire found that BOR had erred in assessing the whole matter, and consequently had erred in law, in finding that the claimant could not rely upon his business as a principal means of livelihood. Umpire thus ruled that the documentary evidence accumulated in the record was convincing, and that the claimant was not unemployed. FCA set aside the Umpire’s decision and referred the matter back to the Umpire to be disposed of, taking it for granted that the errors that the BOR might have committed in assessing the evidence did not justify the Umpire’s intervention.

Decision 39647 Full Text of Decision 39647

The evidence shows that the claimant had been advised that he could have income equivalent to 25% of the benefits he received without such income having any impact on his right to receive those benefits, and that he was justified in believing that his income would not exceed that limit. Umpire found that the claimant was justified in declaring that he was not working at the time he filled out his cards, and that he had not “knowingly” made false or misleading statements. Umpire held that the Board of Referees erred in fact and in law in not regarding the claimant’s explanations as reasonable and in not making any reference to those explanations in its decision.

Decision 39277 Full Text of Decision 39277

The Board of Referees erred in fact and in law in finding that the claimant was unemployed and available. The Board completely ignored the documentary evidence, which showed that the claimant worked 30 to 40 hours per week to set up a business in which he held 25% of the shares, that he had invested time and money in the business, and that he had not looked for work because he was putting all his efforts into working for himself.

Decision A-0557.96 Full Text of Decision A-0557.96

Contradictory evidence in the record. Initial statutory declarations considered most credible. Abundant, consistent case law clearly establishing that a BOR must lend much greater weight to the initial spontaneous declarations made prior to the Commission's decision than to statements made later to justify or improve the claimant's situation in the face of an unfavourable decision from the Commission. Application for judicial review summarily dismissed by the FCA.

Decision 37391 Full Text of Decision 37391

Where there is a direct contradiction, ignoring clear oral evidence in preference of hearsay written statements can amount to an erroneous finding of fact made by the Board without regard for the material before it.

Decision 36927 Full Text of Decision 36927

BOR erred in principle by ignoring direct, oral evidence which was subject to cross-examination, in favour of indirect hearsay that was not subject to testing by cross-examination. BOR gave its decision without regard for the material before it. Matter is referred back before a newly constituted Board of Referees.

Decision A-0270.96 Full Text of Decision A-0270.96

Umpire ruled that it was up to the Board of Referees to consider the ultimate question, which concerned not only which of the two versions had to be preferred, but whether, even if the employer’s version were set aside, the testimony of the claimant could be relied upon, given his previous statements. The BOR had a duty to weigh the testimony and previous statements with care, but preferred to accept the claimant’s testimony and ignored the contradictions on the record. The FCA agreed with the Umpire’s decision to set aside the decision of the BOR.

Decision 29477 Full Text of Decision 29477

Board ignores the claimant's statutory statement, and accepts his testimony at the hearing. Objective evidence giving more credibility to the first statement which was written in simple, common and specific language.

Decision 25154 Full Text of Decision 25154

The Board did not take into account the statutory declarations made by the co-owner and the claimant herself. The fact that the Board totally set aside two statutory declarations constitutes an error in law. (CUB 22722).