Summary of Issue: Adjournment Of Hearing

Decision A-0733.97 Full Text of Decision A-0733.97

An adjournment was first requested in Nov. 94. Then a statutory declaration was filed stating that the claimant would be back in the country only in June 95. A hearing date was set for August 9, 1995. One day prior the hearing, a fax requesting another adjournment was filed. Request denied and the BOR proceeded with the case. Umpire ruled that there was no obligation on the BOR to try and reach the claimant by telephone as they could rely on the statutory declaration that the claimant and her husband would be back by June. The FCA simply refused to interfere with the Umpire's review of the BOR discretion to refuse another adjournment. No denial of natural justice.

Decision A-0732.97 Full Text of Decision A-0732.97

See summary indexed under A-0733.97

Decision 36621A Full Text of Decision 36621A

See summary indexed under A-0733.97

Decision 36620A Full Text of Decision 36620A

See summary indexed under A-0733.97

Decision 29357 Full Text of Decision 29357

If a Board recognizes that a claimant may be able to provide additional information in support of her claim, it should adjourn the hearing so as to afford the claimant an opportunity to present that information to the Board rather than to the Commission.

Decision 26883 Full Text of Decision 26883

The claimant cites failure to observe a principle of natural justice, as he did not receive the appeal docket prior to his appearance before the Board. The Board refused to postpone the case so he could read the file. This is a case of flagrant violation of the principle.

Decision 22735 Full Text of Decision 22735

The Board's refusal to grant an adjournment of the hearing in the knowledge that claimant would not be able to attend on the date scheduled for hearing deprived him of a fair opportunity to answer the case against him, and thus violated a fundamental principle of natural justice.

Decision 21604 Full Text of Decision 21604

Claimant had been present both other times but was not for the 3rd sitting. To justify a decision to proceed, a Board should carefully record its reasons for refusing an adjournment or otherwise explain this unusual circumstance. The Board failed to do this.

Decision 21558 Full Text of Decision 21558

Claimant appealed and asked for more time to gather documentation if necessary. There was a denial of a fair hearing. The Board did not grant an adjournment to enable claimant to obtain more documentation. Yet it was obviously influenced by the lack of further documentation.

Decision 15313 Full Text of Decision 15313

Denial of natural justice in that the Board, knowing that claimant could not attend, did not adjourn the hearing. The right to a fair hearing presupposes the claimant's opportunity to state her case.

Decision 14859 Full Text of Decision 14859

Unable to attend hearing. Phoned many times without avail. The Commission subsequently offered claimant a rehearing. He chose instead to proceed to Umpire. That is an option open to him. But this does not negate the fact he was unable to present his case before the Board.

Decision 13664 Full Text of Decision 13664

New facts presented at hearing. The board had jursidiction to adjourn the hearing to allow the Commission to resume its investigation. Rule 65 gives the chairman some latitude. The board would have erred if it had refused. [p. 7]

Decision 13396 Full Text of Decision 13396

Unable to attend because working and requested an adjournment. I fail to understand why it was refused. Jurisprudence has established that a party to an appeal is not entitled to an adjournment as of right without good reason. Inability to attend is a good reason.

Decision 11171 Full Text of Decision 11171

Representative detained elsewhere because of negotiations and insured also had to be absent. Even if there is no formal request for adjournment, everyone has sacred right to be heard. Case referred back to board.

Decision 11022 Full Text of Decision 11022

One cannot criticize the Board's refusal to grant a 3rd postponement. Within its discretion to do so. Claimant cannot pick and choose date. Notification of refusal of postponement delivered prior to hearing. However, new hearing granted due to special circumstances.