Summary of Issue: By Telephone

Decision 19512 Full Text of Decision 19512

Claimant requested a phone hearing. Option not available in area served by Board Centre. I do not consider this to be an adequate justification. Not apparent to me why this should be impossible in Vancouver and claimant should have been informed and given option to attend.

Decision 15504 Full Text of Decision 15504

The hearing reconvened on 27-8-86. Both hearings were conducted by telephone. I consider that this procedure of conducting hearings by telephone is far from satisfactory and should not be followed, barring exceptional circumstances.

Decision 12352A Full Text of Decision 12352A

It has now been decided by the Court of Appeal that a telephone hearing does not constitute a fair hearing before a Board. Had the Board heard him in person it might properly have decided to impose the disentitlement only from mid-March. Case referred back to Board.

Decision 13758 Full Text of Decision 13758

This is not reprehensible in itself and may well accommodate the parties, not to mention reducing costs, but the time must be taken to read the documents relied on.

Decision 12441 Full Text of Decision 12441

Misconduct and contradictory evidence. Wrongly dismissed according to Labour Board. Where credibility is involved, telephone hearings are not satisfactory. Here, the 2 protagonists were present. With reluctance, I find there must be a hearing in person. There is no doubt that Boards are entitled to conduct their hearings in a variety of ways, including by telephone conference. In some circumstances a fair hearing will require a hearing in person. Such a case arises when the credibility of claimant or others is really in issue.

Decision 12430 Full Text of Decision 12430

I am not making any general rule that there must always be a hearing with claimant personally present. But where there are serious questions of dispute apparent on the face of the record, the Board should give serious consideration about dispensing withtelephone hearings. [p. 5]

Decision 12431 Full Text of Decision 12431

I am not criticizing the use of telephone hearings but how can anyone assess the credibility of a witness, whether or not to accept his statement that he did not receive a letter, without seeing him in person.

Decision 12352 Full Text of Decision 12352

It is strange that Umpires are willing to sit at places of convenience to claimants while the Commission or Boards do not always do that.

Decision 12351 Full Text of Decision 12351

In this case, the procedure used [telephone hearing] was most unsatisfactory. The decision depended largely on credibility. The positions taken were completely opposite. A tribunal could only decide by hearing and seeing the protagonists in person.

Decision 12343 Full Text of Decision 12343

One problem is that the Board of Referees does not see the claimant in person and is not affected by the claimant's personality or argument. One cannot judge people by the sound of their voice. Much better an eye-ball to eye-ball meeting.

Decision 12220 Full Text of Decision 12220

Question at issue: penalty. This is unfortunate in that the test of credibility of a claimant, the give and take of an enquiry having all the parties in personal attendance were ingredients which the Board had, of necessity, to do without. [p. 4]

Decision 11940 Full Text of Decision 11940

I have no hesitation in saying that board did not not fail to observe principles of natural justice even though hearing held by telephone. Use of telephone did not alter fairness of hearing.