Summary of Issue: Observations From The Commission

Decision 31164 Full Text of Decision 31164

The Commission is not fulfilling its responsibilities in citing rather one sided jurisprudence to Boards. The Commission must present a balanced and accurate picture of the law. That may be difficult in many cases and one does not expect perfection, butthere is an obligation to at least try.

Decision 27890 Full Text of Decision 27890

Claimant finds fault with the CUBs cited by the Commission resulting in a failure to provide a balanced review of the jurisprudence. No basis for such a submission. The Commission by referring to certain CUBs has done so to support the position it adopts in the appeal. Nothing more and nothing less.

Decision 22207 Full Text of Decision 22207

Recent jurisprudence not cited by CEIC. It is always disturbing to find the CEIC citing unbalanced or outdated jurisprudence to Boards. This is not fair. They are highly dependent upon material put before them. The CEIC has an obligation to ensure that such information is balanced and not outdated.

Decision 21910 Full Text of Decision 21910

These documents, the news release and the memo outlining the policy, do not constitute legislation but they show the policy as to how the legislation is to be enforced. They are to be placed officially on file, as the Commission should have done. They represent a change in policy.

Decision 21690 Full Text of Decision 21690

The Commission put on file oblique statements by CEIC employees that this employer had had employer/employee difficulties in the past. No further information is provided. This kind of material is most improper and without some specifics being provided it is highly prejudicial.

Decision 21689 Full Text of Decision 21689

The CEIC has misled the Board in stating that as a matter of law earlier statements are more credible. It does a disservice to claimants, Boards and Umpires in misrepresenting the state of the law to Boards especially as there is normally no one there to refute such observations.

Decision 17907 Full Text of Decision 17907

I would emphasize that the observations provided to Boards are never evidence of the facts they purport to summarize. Boards should be alert to that fact and in every case it is necessary to ascertain whether the facts as stated are substantiated by proof on the record.

Decision 15840 Full Text of Decision 15840

The Commission withholds from the referees a balanced array of jurisprudence. This one-sided presentation might have contributed to bias or pre-judgment. For a truly unbiased, independent and impartial decision-making process, a balanced presentation should be provided.

Decision 15816 Full Text of Decision 15816

Nowhere is there any reference to CUB 3552 which directly supports claimant's case. The CEIC has a responsibility to bring to the attention of the Umpire any jurisprudence supporting claimant's case especially if not represented. Computerized information makes this possible.

Decision 14196A Full Text of Decision 14196A

Referees rely considerably for guidance upon jurisprudence cited by the CEIC. How can they defend their independence when unbalanced, slanted presentation is all they have? The CEIC had better select pertinent cases on both sides of the issues so as notto misguide referees. Fairness, balance and objectivity on the part of Insurance Officers is simply essential. They owe a duty in undertaking to cite jurisprudence to referees, to keep up-to-date and not to hobble the referees with out-of-date jurisprudential antiquities.

Decision 15252 Full Text of Decision 15252

To submit selectively slanted jurisprudence is highly improper and unfair, since almost all referees are not lawyers, as all claimants are not lawyers. Mild presumption of lack of objectivity because author of the observations is also author of the notice of disqualification.

Decision 14833 Full Text of Decision 14833

Observations of the Commission are not an objective document. The Board certainly should not be swayed by the summaries of the evidence which the Commission puts to it in its observations. The Board must address its own mind to the issue in dispute before it.

Decision 14805 Full Text of Decision 14805

The Board misconceived its function. Observations in part responsible for this. They are misnamed as observations. They are really a presentation of one side of the case. They are an argument slanted to support the Commission's decision. They lack objectivity. [p. 6]

Decision 14359 Full Text of Decision 14359

It seems common practice for the Commission to include statements of what the law requires which are taken out of context. A balanced picture is usually not provided. Boards have no legal training and rely heavily on observations which are one-sided.

Decision 13820 Full Text of Decision 13820

No attempt made to present a balanced or objective or even accurate view of the jurisprudence to Boards. Vast quagmire of injustice operating at Board's level. Boards are too dependent on the advice by the Commission. [p._12-13]

Decision 13161 Full Text of Decision 13161

The Commission has a duty to make its "Observations" reflect as fairly as possible the present state of the law and the facts. Claimants are usually not represented by counsel.

Decision 11317A Full Text of Decision 11317A

"Observations" is probably a misnomer for these documents. They usually do not contain the objectivity that that title would lead one to expect. They are usually very much an advocacy type which contains the Commission's view that it is desired the Board accept.

Decision 12776 Full Text of Decision 12776

Old CUBs presented instead of recent FC judgments on antedating. Board members not legally trained and with claimants are highly dependent on Commission representatives. These must not be overzealous but present a balanced and accurate picture of the state of law.

Decision 10602 Full Text of Decision 10602

The Commission is expected to submit jurisprudence supporting the decision and that which does not. In a court of law, counsel who do not do this are considered in breach of a fundamental principle of ethics and of their duty. More pressing to apply this to a Board. [p._14]