Summary of Issue: Right To Cross-Examine

Decision 29012 Full Text of Decision 29012

It is argued that Commission employees and persons from whom they had obtained statements should be present at the Board hearing for cross-examination. As per CUB 12281, in admitting hearsay evidence the Board must observe the rules of natural justice but need not test it by cross-examination.

Decision 28600 Full Text of Decision 28600

The mere fact that the Board or the claimant were not given the opportunity to cross-examine an employer because the latter was not present at the hearing, should not be a determining factor either; see OLIVIER.

Decision 22760 Full Text of Decision 22760

On the issue of natural justice, the appeal has no merit. The written submissions were those of the Commission officer and he was not present to be "cross-examined" before the Board. There is no requirement for him to be present, and in fact Commission officers seldom do testify before Boards.

Decision 20939 Full Text of Decision 20939

It is argued that the failure to have an opportunity to cross-examine a certain person on her affidavit constituted a lack of natural justice. Cross-examination on affidavits is a discretionary matter, one seldom feasible in UI cases which must be decided summarily.

Decision 19488 Full Text of Decision 19488

A hearing by a Board of Referees is not a matter of examining witnesses as in a court of law; it is an informal process designed to provide a fair opportunity for a claimant to present his case for appeal. In my view, that opportunity was provided in this case.

Decision 17649 Full Text of Decision 17649

Even though natural justice does not grant claimant the right to verify the truthfulness of a statement through cross-examination (see CUB-12282), the Board should have at least required the presence of a representative of the employer able to bear witness to the incidence.

Decision 16222 Full Text of Decision 16222

Different versions of facts relating to reasons for dismissal were presented. While it might have been more helpful if a representative of the employer had been present in order to assist the Board, there is no requirement that this be done.

Decision 12732 Full Text of Decision 12732

I would think that claimant should be entitled to cross-examine the officer of the Commission who writes up a report that is so damaging as to cut benefits. Was not permitted to do so. Case referred back to the Board.

Decision 12683 Full Text of Decision 12683

Surprised at the procedure adopted by Board: claimant gave evidence and was asked to leave, then employer came in and gave evidence. No opportunity given claimant to ask questions of employer or give rebuttal evidence. Entitled to cross-examine witness called.

Decision 12281 Full Text of Decision 12281

Reg. 64(6) provides that the procedure at a hearing before a Board is to be determined by the Chairman. A Board is master of its own procedure. It must observe the rules of natural justice but this does not mean that hearsay evidence must be tested by cross-examination. [p. 5-6]

Decision 11004 Full Text of Decision 11004

Claimant not allowed to be present when former employer made statements to the Board concerning the dismissal. Employer not present when claimant gave evidence. This is a most irregular way of proceeding and failing rare circumstances must be viewed as a denial of a fair hearing.

Decision A-0437.81 Full Text of Decision A-0437.81

Breach of natural justice, according to Umpire, in that insured attended before the board alone and could not question the official who had interviewed him. Decision set aside: cannot be concluded from this fact that decision vitiated by one of the errors set out in s. 80.

Decision A-0308.81 Full Text of Decision A-0308.81

It cannot be concluded that the board breached a principle of natural justice merely because it restricted the length of the hearing to 10 minutes, the appellant failed to submit evidence he was prepared to submit to the Umpire, or he was unable to cross-examine the employer, who was not called as a witness.

Decision A-0247.80 Full Text of Decision A-0247.80

According to Umpire, evidence in record that was obtained by telephone is inadmissible, as those persons coudl nto be questioned either by the board or by the judge. Judgment reversed. Judge must consider all the evidence before him, including evidence filed under Reg. 68.