Decision T-2369.95
Full Text of Decision T-2369.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
right to be heard |
employer |
|
Summary:
Claimant's appeal as to her disqualification for misconduct allowed. Twice the employer requested a new hearing which was granted by the BOR. Claimant filed an application for a writ of prohibition to stop the third hearing. The FCA recognized the BOR' jurisdiction to reopen the hearing but found that the employer had been given a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The FCA found however that in the particular circumstances of the case, such an excess of litigation was unreasonable and imposed hardship upon the claimant.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
Decision 17139
Full Text of Decision 17139
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
right to be heard |
employer |
|
Summary:
The Board grants the appeal on misconduct because of the absence of the employer. The latter had not been duly notified of the hearing. Denial of justice since he had the right to be present and be heard.
Decision 14576
Full Text of Decision 14576
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
right to be heard |
employer |
|
Summary:
Employer sought to introduce evidence showing that employees were encouraged by management to volunteer for lay-off. The Board refused to consider this. As non-availability was based in part on the voluntary nature of lay-off, such evidence was relevant. Violation of natural justice.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
job search |
incomplete information |
|
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
meaning of a term |
|
| availability for work |
job search |
how to search |
|
| availability for work |
job search |
number of contacts |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
availability concept |
|
Decision 11607
Full Text of Decision 11607
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
right to be heard |
employer |
|
Summary:
The employer noted that claimant introduced new evidence at the hearing and that he was not given an opportunity to comment on it. But he admits he was given prior notice of hearing and chose not to attend. He must live with the consequences of his choice.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Decision 29257
Full Text of Decision 29257
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
right to be heard |
harassment |
discretion of the chairperson |
Summary:
Allowing witnesses for the employer to listen to a tape of claimant's testimony as to sexual harassment allegedly experienced by her in the course of her employment, before those witnesses testified, gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of fabrication or tailoring of evidence.
A rationale based on avoidance of embarrassment and discomfort is consistent with a rationale designed to ensure full, frank and untailored evidence of embarrassing events from both sides in what is bound to be an adversarial situation.
Decision 25396
Full Text of Decision 25396
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
right to be heard |
improper hearing |
|
Summary:
Referees have a duty to hear out the claimant, within the limits of reason. Failure to do so will invalidate their decision. If it appears that the referees had made up their minds prior to the hearing, their decision should be rescinded. These are questions of fact particular to each case.
Decision 19057
Full Text of Decision 19057
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
right to be heard |
improper hearing |
|
Summary:
Reg. 66(1) requires that any party be given sufficient time to present argument on any relevant matter. Claimant has a right to a full presentation. He should not be deprived of his opportunity to present his evidence orally because he has provided the Board with a written copy.
Decision 15745A
Full Text of Decision 15745A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
right to be heard |
improper hearing |
|
Summary:
As to whether the chairman absented himself 10 minutes during the hearing, in reviewing the tape I could hear a member mentioning he was going to the bathroom. The hearing appeared to continue in his absence. This was quite improper and amounts to a denial of natural justice.
Decision 18258
Full Text of Decision 18258
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
right to be heard |
improper hearing |
|
Summary:
It is my understanding that Boards have a practice of allowing only 45 minutes for a hearing. In most cases this would seem entirely reasonable but claimants must be notified of this ahead of time. Lack of an opportunity to fully present one's case is adenial of natural justice.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
harassment |
|
|
Decision 18242
Full Text of Decision 18242
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
right to be heard |
improper hearing |
|
Summary:
Commission wholly responsible for causing a delay of 2 years. This has hindered claimant from obtaining original documentary evidence. Discrepancy regarding actual wages earned to be resolved in his favour because of the delay which has prejudiced him from making a full response.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
proof |
|
|
Decision 16711
Full Text of Decision 16711
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
right to be heard |
improper hearing |
|
Summary:
In support of his appeal, the employer handed to the Board at the hearing a 30-page document. Claimant's counsel was denied an adjournment to study these additional submissions. This is a flagrant denial of natural justice.
Decision 15216
Full Text of Decision 15216
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
right to be heard |
improper hearing |
|
Summary:
There was a lack of natural justice not only because essential evidence which claimant had asked to be placed on file had not found its way there, but also because the members demonstrated by their attitude that they had prejudged the case.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
| board of referees |
hearings |
tape-recording |
|
| penalties |
proof |
need for an explanation |
|
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
by telephone |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
relations at work |
unhappy atmosphere |
|
Decision 14876
Full Text of Decision 14876
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
right to be heard |
improper hearing |
|
Summary:
Not given a fair hearing. Decision sent to claimant before members received job search list. There being no transcript, no reason not to believe her. I do accept her allegation that the Board made up its mind before the hearing. This happens too often. It is reprehensible.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
job search |
effective date |
|
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
contradictory |
|
| availability for work |
restrictions |
or preferences |
|
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
clarification |
|
Decision 14852
Full Text of Decision 14852
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
right to be heard |
improper hearing |
|
Summary:
The Board's decision deserves considerable criticism. It gives every indication that claimant did not get a fair hearing. It looks as though the Board made up its mind before the hearing, on the basis of material provided to it by the CEIC. No independent assessment. [p. 5]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| sickness benefits |
proof |
|
|
Decision 14833
Full Text of Decision 14833
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
right to be heard |
improper hearing |
|
Summary:
Claimant says he was not given a fair hearing. Board members have written letters and had them placed on file, contending this is not so. Not proper to seek such letters which are bound to be self-serving. They may create impression of unfairness, 3 against claimant.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
observations from the Commission |
|
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
tantamount to dismissal |
|
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
credibility |
|
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
comments on conduct of hearing |
|
Decision 14797
Full Text of Decision 14797
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
right to be heard |
improper hearing |
|
Summary:
The Board should be composed of 3 impartial, unbiased members who are able to accurately judge community standards involved. The fact that one member phoned claimant's representative and displayed a hostile attitude toward claimant is evidence of bias.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
error by board |
|
| teaching |
availability for work |
summer months |
|
| availability for work |
job search |
recall or other probable employment |
|
Decision 14677
Full Text of Decision 14677
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
right to be heard |
improper hearing |
|
Summary:
Hearings of appeals before Boards must preserve at all times a reasonable standard of detachment and the appearance of justice being seen to be done. This standard is not well served by embarking on a confrontational question and answer type of inquisitorial proceeding. [p. 6]
Several judgments examined from various Courts. Chairperson's aggressive and hostile questioning of the claimant raised a reasonable apprehension of bias by creating in claimant's mind the impression that he was not going to get a fair and impartial hearing. [p. 6]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
disentitlement not automatic |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
attending classes |
|
Decision 14395
Full Text of Decision 14395
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
right to be heard |
improper hearing |
|
Summary:
Alleged not a fair hearing because not allowed to address Board longer than 40 minutes. Unable to conclude that the Board acted improperly. With relatively simple facts, members might consider after 40 minutes that they had enough information for a decision.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| refusal of work |
presently working |
|
|
Decision 14382
Full Text of Decision 14382
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
right to be heard |
improper hearing |
|
Summary:
Claimant did not feel she had the freedom of speech. The Board said she was given every opportunity. Failing further information from her, and having regard to the lengthy written statement signed by all members, unable to conclude that there was any denial of natural justice.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
real estate salespersons |
|
|
| week of unemployment |
rationale |
|
|
| penalties |
courses of study |
|
|
Decision 14341
Full Text of Decision 14341
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
right to be heard |
improper hearing |
|
Summary:
Notice sent by CEIC to claimant indicating appeal dismissed before it was heard. Probably error in dates. The more serious error: the Board heard evidence from employer after claimant and representative had left. Must hear both sides in the presence of each other.
Decision 14254
Full Text of Decision 14254
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
right to be heard |
improper hearing |
|
Summary:
Complains about a short hearing and he was only asked 5 questions. It is up to him to make his case, not the task of Board to make his case for him. To ask questions in order to clarify, that too is in order.
Decision 14200
Full Text of Decision 14200
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
right to be heard |
improper hearing |
|
Summary:
Agument based on documents to be sent after conference call that took the place of a hearing. Board made decision before receiving documents. Denial of justice.
Decision 12516
Full Text of Decision 12516
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
right to be heard |
improper hearing |
|
Summary:
Once the Board rejected the statement because of lack of notarization, fairness would dictate that the hearing be adjourned in order to enable claimant to provide a formal statement in keeping with the Board's requirement for authenticity. [p. 11]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
hearsay |
|
| board of referees |
natural justice |
free of bias |
|
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
selection of one ground |
|
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
not a trial de novo |
|
Decision 12094
Full Text of Decision 12094
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
right to be heard |
improper hearing |
|
Summary:
At hearing, insured unable to examine original of important document that was apparently mislaid; board found it afterward and took it into account in the decision.
Decision 11659
Full Text of Decision 11659
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
right to be heard |
improper hearing |
|
Summary:
Claimant was delivered at hearing first notice that his version of his dealings with a supervisor were being branded as untrue. He may well have been taken by surprise, and not have a reasonable opportunity to answer. Rehearing ordered.
Decision 10740
Full Text of Decision 10740
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
right to be heard |
improper hearing |
|
Summary:
At the hearing, claimant did not further elaborate on his complaint that he had been denied natural justice by Board nor was there any further supporting evidence. He has not therefore met the onus on him to make out such an allegation.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
health reasons |
|
|
| umpires |
right of hearing |
|
|
Decision 10735
Full Text of Decision 10735
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
right to be heard |
improper hearing |
|
Summary:
Claimant alleged one member showed bias by stating CEIC staff was competent and claimant could not have been misinformed the way she said. Claimant has not discharged onus to show bias. While such member's observations perhaps unwise, it probably was oncredibility.
Decision 10731
Full Text of Decision 10731
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
right to be heard |
improper hearing |
|
Summary:
Claimant suggested in written submission that one member of Board already had made his decision before claimant even arrived. This is a serious allegation and cannot be accepted without substantiation. Claimant and representative did not appear before me.
Decision 10666
Full Text of Decision 10666
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
right to be heard |
improper hearing |
|
Summary:
Claimant disturbed as Board "had suggested how she might have handled her situation and avoid disqualification." I advised her that any complaint or concern about the words or conduct of a member should be raised in another forum.
Decision 10602
Full Text of Decision 10602
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
right to be heard |
improper hearing |
|
Summary:
Chairperson absented herself twice to check matters with Commission and returned with copy of circular circulated to members but denied to claimant's representative until proceedings initiated under Freedom of Information Act. Clearly a denial of natural justice.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
observations from the Commission |
|
|
| sickness benefits |
otherwise available |
|
|
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
guidelines from the Commission |
|
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
oral evidence |
|
| board of referees |
natural justice |
free of bias |
|
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
independent decision-making |
|
Decision A-0913.84
Full Text of Decision A-0913.84
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
right to be heard |
improper hearing |
|
Summary:
Claimant had a lengthy presentation and turned hearing into a farce of questioning the Board. Not an adequate hearing: Board adjourned before hearing completed and then made its decision without resuming hearing. The Board has authority to limit claimant to relevant evidence.
Decision A-1420.83
Full Text of Decision A-1420.83
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
right to be heard |
improper hearing |
|
Summary:
Letter of dismissal shown to but not handed to claimant. Copy refused to Commission pending law suit. Crucial character of letter undisputable. The Board proceeded knowing the evidence to exist and in spite of claimant's request to defer. Denial of natural justice.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
document missing |
|
|
| federal court |
appeal system |
calculation of delay |
|
| umpires |
judgment in written form |
a requirement |
|
Decision A-0380.97
Full Text of Decision A-0380.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
right to be heard |
language to be used |
|
Summary:
Claimant is Francophone. At the hearing before the Umpire, the presentation made by the Commission’s representative was delivered entirely in English. The interpreter began to stumble, and stopped translating. Despite the claimant’s objections, the Umpire did not see fit to respond. Consequently, the claimant was unable to understand what was being presented, and could not respond with full knowledge of the matter. FCA found that such an infringement of the principles of natural justice necessarily vitiated the procedure before the Umpire, and hence the decision resulting from it. The matter was referred back to another Umpire for re-hearing in a manner that would fully respect the principles of natural justice.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
denial of natural justice |
|
Decision 25973A
Full Text of Decision 25973A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
right to be heard |
language to be used |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0281.95
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
right of being represented |
|
|
| proof |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
| proof |
errors in law |
rules of evidence |
|
| week of unemployment |
farming |
full working week |
|
Decision A-0281.95
Full Text of Decision A-0281.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
right to be heard |
language to be used |
|
Summary:
Alleged by representative that the BOR failed to ascertain the competency of claimants' interpreters. Umpire held that where the interpreter is the appellant's selectee, it should be safe to assume that his/her competency has been acknowledged and accepted by the appellant. Not disturbed by the FCA.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
right of being represented |
|
|
| proof |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
| proof |
errors in law |
rules of evidence |
|
| week of unemployment |
farming |
full working week |
|
Decision 25574
Full Text of Decision 25574
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
right to be heard |
language to be used |
|
Summary:
There is no evidence to suggest that the Board was biased because its members understood the French language. The claimant's proposition that only a unilingual Board or Umpire would be capable of rendering an unbiased judgment in his case is obviously untenable.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
working conditions |
dangerous |
|
Decision 14708
Full Text of Decision 14708
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
right to be heard |
language to be used |
|
Summary:
One member could not hear claimant, he frequently asked her to speak up and continued to do so after she had raised her voice. Another did not understand what she was saying. I found claimant a credible witness and there was at least appearance of unfairness.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| courses of instruction or training |
negligence by Commission |
|
|
| availability for work |
job search |
warning before disentitlement |
|
Decision 14516
Full Text of Decision 14516
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
right to be heard |
language to be used |
|
Summary:
Claimant clearly had requested an appeal before a Board in English even though some of his correspondence was in French for the benefit of the CEIC officer. No prejudice even if heard in French since claimant did not appear at the hearing.
Decision 14501
Full Text of Decision 14501
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
right to be heard |
language to be used |
|
Summary:
Claimant had clearly asked for a hearing in English but case heard in French. This alone would justify a new hearing.
Decision 12494
Full Text of Decision 12494
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
right to be heard |
language to be used |
|
Summary:
Only one of members understood French. This procedure failed to observe principle of natural justice. Case referred back to new board.
Decision 11992
Full Text of Decision 11992
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
right to be heard |
language to be used |
|
Summary:
The fact that claimant may speak or write French is not a sufficient reason to deny someone the right to have a hearing in English if that is what is requested. Irrelevant that he did not object to the irregularity. To be allowed time for full explanation of his case.
