Decision 26656
Full Text of Decision 26656
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
constitution of board |
change of members |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0100.95
Decision A-0100.95
Full Text of Decision A-0100.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
constitution of board |
change of members |
|
Summary:
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
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
constitution of board |
change of members |
|
Summary:
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.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| courses of instruction or training |
referral |
duration |
|
Decision 18586
Full Text of Decision 18586
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
constitution of board |
change of members |
|
Summary:
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
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
constitution of board |
change of members |
|
Summary:
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.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
services provided irregularly |
|
Decision 15123
Full Text of Decision 15123
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
constitution of board |
change of members |
|
Summary:
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
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
constitution of board |
change of members |
|
Summary:
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
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
constitution of board |
change of members |
|
Summary:
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.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
incompetence |
|
|
Decision 13787
Full Text of Decision 13787
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
constitution of board |
change of members |
|
Summary:
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
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
constitution of board |
change of members |
|
Summary:
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
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
constitution of board |
change of members |
|
Summary:
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
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
constitution of board |
change of members |
|
Summary:
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
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
constitution of board |
change of members |
|
Summary:
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
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
constitution of board |
change of members |
|
Summary:
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
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
constitution of board |
change of members |
|
Summary:
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
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
constitution of board |
change of members |
|
Summary:
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.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
hearsay |
|
Decision 12280
Full Text of Decision 12280
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
constitution of board |
change of members |
|
Summary:
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.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
natural justice |
free of bias |
|
Decision 12236
Full Text of Decision 12236
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
constitution of board |
change of members |
|
Summary:
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
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
constitution of board |
change of members |
|
Summary:
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.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
refusal to obey orders |
|
|
| misconduct |
definition |
|
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
meaning of a term |
|
Decision A-0553.83
Full Text of Decision A-0553.83
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
constitution of board |
change of members |
|
Summary:
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.
Decision A-0436.97
Full Text of Decision A-0436.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
constitution of board |
member ineligible |
|
Summary:
No evidence to indicate that any members of the BOR had a bias against the claimant. The fact that a Board member has been on a panel hearing a case involving a relative of the applicant and dealing with an entirely different matter does not constitute bias in law.
Decision 29288
Full Text of Decision 29288
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
constitution of board |
member ineligible |
|
Summary:
Claimant states that he had had a good relationship with the Board member whom he knew but finding that individual on the Board threw his concentration. The safer course of action is for the Board member to recuse himself. This avoids any possible suggestion of bias.
Decision 22092
Full Text of Decision 22092
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
constitution of board |
member ineligible |
|
Summary:
Claimant is an unsophisticated, barely literate person and was not represented. The situation, despite the chairman's proper disclosure of a 20-year acquaintanceship with that employer, is redolent of a reasonable apprehension of bias in such a case. Heought to have insisted to replace himself.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
acts of violence |
|
|
Decision 21407
Full Text of Decision 21407
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
constitution of board |
member ineligible |
|
Summary:
Is there any affiliation between one of the parties and one of the tribunal members: (a) because they are related, (b) because of that member's interest in the dispute, (c) because of an earlier public denunciation of the kind of case that is before the tribunal?
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
natural justice |
defined |
|
Decision 21396
Full Text of Decision 21396
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
constitution of board |
member ineligible |
|
Summary:
She alleged that the Board was not totally impartial in that 1 member was personally known to her. At the hearing before me no mention was made of the bias issue and I am not going to consider it further. Mere acquaintanceship does not imply bias.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
restrictions |
reasonable period of time |
|
Decision 21039
Full Text of Decision 21039
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
constitution of board |
member ineligible |
|
Summary:
Claimant had been a member of the executive of a union and also of a Council. The employee representative was well-known to him and they had considerable and many disagreements. That representative led all the discussions at the hearing. Complaint to betreated very seriously.
Decision 21033
Full Text of Decision 21033
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
constitution of board |
member ineligible |
|
Summary:
It is alleged that the Board was not impartial. The Board is a separate entity from the CEIC and appointed to hear appeals from decisions of Insurance Officers. If all 3 members were selected by government or other body, the allegation might be correct but that is not the case.
Decision 20384
Full Text of Decision 20384
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
constitution of board |
member ineligible |
|
Summary:
Even s.81 indicates that rehearing by the same referees is not only not unthinkable, but it is legal. This illustrates the genuine possibility of that which is undesirable being nevertheless legal. The referees were not disqualified for having conducteda rehearing.
Decision 19990
Full Text of Decision 19990
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
constitution of board |
member ineligible |
|
Summary:
The argument made demonstrates a misunderstanding of the role of members of Boards; the "employee's representative" on the Board is not required, or permitted, as the claimant submits, to present the employee's case to the other members of the Board.
Decision 19582
Full Text of Decision 19582
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
constitution of board |
member ineligible |
|
Summary:
It is my experience that when an appeal warrants a return to a Board, it ought to be heard, wherever possible, by a different Board. Common sense tells us that the repetition of the earlier decision, even if completely correct, has the appearance of self-justification.
Decision 18652
Full Text of Decision 18652
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
constitution of board |
member ineligible |
|
Summary:
The procedural irregularity consists of having appointed the same Board to hear claimant's case after that Board had ruled against him once before in his absence not having received adequate notice of the hearing.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
natural justice |
notice of hearing |
|
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
new facts not required |
|
Decision 17855
Full Text of Decision 17855
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
constitution of board |
member ineligible |
|
Summary:
Appeal dismissed by Board in the absence of the claimant. Second hearing held before same Board. Case to be heard by a new Board. The claimant was prejudiced by having to appear before a Board which had already decided the issue. This constituted a breach of natural justice.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
contradictory |
|
Decision 15666
Full Text of Decision 15666
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
constitution of board |
member ineligible |
|
Summary:
The presence of claimant's first cousin as member of the Board created the appearance of bias and it does not matter whether the appearance was in favour or against claimant. No need to decide that there was actual bias. Appearance of bias alone constitutes denial of natural justice.
Decision 15570
Full Text of Decision 15570
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
constitution of board |
member ineligible |
|
Summary:
As to Chairman's introduction as CEIC representative, this is obviously improper and a misapprehension of his role. One of the most elementary requirements of natural justice is that no one may sit if he has an interest. The Chairman must not be seen tobe representing the CEIC.
S.76 is not meant to provide that employer's or insured person's representatives act solely in the interests of that party. The composition of a Board is designated so as to have a wide range of labour market experience. To imply that one has a representative was a serious error.
Decision 15506
Full Text of Decision 15506
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
constitution of board |
member ineligible |
|
Summary:
Claimant says that the Board was in a conflict of interest position because its members were paid by Government. I do not intend to apply to his submissions with respect to bias, conflict of interest or charges that the Board failed in its obligations. I find no merit in this.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
earnings |
|
|
Decision 15178
Full Text of Decision 15178
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
constitution of board |
member ineligible |
|
Summary:
The brother of a member voted in an employer's board whereby claimant lost his employment after he was involved in a much-publicized fraud in the area. Referee ought to have withdrawn and to have been replaced. [Issue not related to loss of employment]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
out of canada |
|
Decision 14992
Full Text of Decision 14992
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
constitution of board |
member ineligible |
|
Summary:
Claimant suggests that there is some element of unfairness in Boards being appointed and paid by the Commission. I do not accept that argument. No evidence that this Board was predisposed in favour of the Commission rather than the claimant.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| refusal of work |
warning prior to disentitlement |
|
|
Decision 14856
Full Text of Decision 14856
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
constitution of board |
member ineligible |
|
Summary:
The Board rendered a decision in claimant's absence. Claimant then sought to appear. Same Board reconvened. A different Board should have heard the appeal, otherwise an apprehension of bias certainly exists. This was not a rehearing to clarify some point of evidence.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
minor in extent |
|
|
Decision 14813
Full Text of Decision 14813
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
constitution of board |
member ineligible |
|
Summary:
Notice of hearing not received by claimant until after decision of Board. New hearing held by same panel. Same decision. Having the same panel rehear the case leads to an apprehension of bias. Ss.80(a) not met. S.81 used by Umpire to render the decisionin place of the Board.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
misinformation from Commission |
|
|
| board of referees |
statement of facts |
as a requirement |
|
Decision 14552
Full Text of Decision 14552
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
constitution of board |
member ineligible |
|
Summary:
Claimant objected to one member who had attended a marriage preparation course with him. To found an allegation of bias, claimant must show a situation that could lead to a reasonable apprehension of bias, though actual bias not required.
Decision 13833
Full Text of Decision 13833
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
constitution of board |
member ineligible |
|
Summary:
Appears to me to be inevitable that a member may occasionally know a claimant, an employer or one of their family members personally. That does not make the member ineligible to hear the case.
Decision 11914
Full Text of Decision 11914
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
constitution of board |
member ineligible |
|
Summary:
Claimant argues that because members of the Board are employed by the Commission they are unable to give an honest judgment. In answer to that, I adopt the comment given in CUB 6209.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
Decision 21118
Full Text of Decision 21118
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
constitution of board |
quorum |
|
Summary:
Employer appeals Board's decision; case heard and decided by two members of Board without consent of employer involved. Contrary to Reg. 62(5)(b). Pursuant to Section 81, case sent back for new hearing.
Decision 10665B
Full Text of Decision 10665B
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
constitution of board |
quorum |
|
Summary:
With claimant's consent, case heard by a 2-person Board. Chairman dismissed the appeal and other member allowed it. Under reg.62(5) and (6), the Chairman had a casting vote the effect of which was to make his decision the decision of the Board. No denial of natural justice.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
income |
deductible expenses |
|
Decision 15213
Full Text of Decision 15213
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
constitution of board |
quorum |
|
Summary:
The referees' decision was signed by only 2 referees, who were unanimous. No opinion signed by the 3rd. If he took any part in the deliberations, basis for dissent would be helpful. In any event, the 2 referees constitute the majority.
Decision 13133
Full Text of Decision 13133
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
constitution of board |
quorum |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0244.87
Decision A-0244.87
Full Text of Decision A-0244.87
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
constitution of board |
quorum |
|
Summary:
The decision of the Board in this matter violated a principle of natural justice in that one of the members of the Board who participated in the decision was absent during a substantial part of the hearing.
Decision 14248
Full Text of Decision 14248
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
constitution of board |
quorum |
|
Summary:
Issue: misconduct. Claimant argues conflict of interest by a 2-person Board who may favour management as labour representative withdrew. Claimant consented to a hearing in front of a 2-man Board and cannot now complain without some evidence of bias.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
damages |
|
|
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Decision 13079
Full Text of Decision 13079
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
constitution of board |
quorum |
|
Summary:
In instant case, no consent given by claimant authorizing board to hold hearing with only 2 members. Decision of board is therefore void and of no effect and claimant's appeal is allowed.
Decision 12831
Full Text of Decision 12831
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
constitution of board |
quorum |
|
Summary:
One Board member disqualified himself. One member agreed with the Commission and found claimant not entitled. One member found claimant entitled. "Majority decision" that claimant was not available is maintained.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
restrictions |
labour market information |
|
| availability for work |
job search |
as a requirement |
|
Decision 12095
Full Text of Decision 12095
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
constitution of board |
quorum |
|
Summary:
Case heard by 2 members and decision signed by 3 of them. Whoever decides must also have heard and attended the appeal. The claimant was entitled to present his appeal before a duly constituted board of at least 3 referees.
Decision A-0439.81
Full Text of Decision A-0439.81
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
constitution of board |
quorum |
|
Summary:
Reg. 62(5) allowing board to be composed of only 2 members is valid. CEIC had the power to make regulation under 91(5). Quorum is minimum number of members who must be present in order for decision to be valid.
