Decision 15453A
Full Text of Decision 15453A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
oral evidence |
|
Summary:
The insured person wishes to call a witness of whom he never spoke beforehand. It would be contrary to the good administration of justice to allow an unlucky litigant to try to supplement evidence which should have been submitted at the appropriate time and place.
Decision 17186
Full Text of Decision 17186
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
oral evidence |
|
Summary:
There is no rule against Umpires hearing viva voce evidence particularly when a Board's decision is faulty but I do not think it appropriate to do so here. Claimant's request has taken the Commission by surprise who considers it would be prejudiced if new evidence heard.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
statement of facts |
not to be read strictly |
|
Decision 14357
Full Text of Decision 14357
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
oral evidence |
|
Summary:
Eligibility of a foreign student who does not possess a work permit. Claimant's counsel moved to have added as intervenors other students and organizations. Motion refused. Eligibility based on specific facts of each individual case. [p. 2]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
restrictions |
work permit limitations in canada |
|
| availability for work |
applicability |
definition |
|
Decision 10690
Full Text of Decision 10690
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
oral evidence |
|
Summary:
Nothing to confirm that board refused to hear a witness. Even before me, witness was not called. Under 78(1), 81, 85 and 86, I could have heard witness and decided whether I should intervene or refer matter back to board.
Decision 10601
Full Text of Decision 10601
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
oral evidence |
|
Summary:
The Commission is not prejudiced by this procedure [Umpire accepting viva voce evidence]. It is always open to the Commission to ask for adjournment and bring forward contradictory evidence; always open to rebut claimant's version under s.86, even if there is no adjournment.
The Commission objected to viva voce evidence. No transcript kept of Board proceedings. For the purpose of s.80, the only way possible for the Umpire to know what oral evidence was before the Board or how the proceeding was conducted is through testimony. This is quite appropriate.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
minor in extent |
|
|
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
decision incomplete |
principal means of livelihood |
Decision 10602
Full Text of Decision 10602
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
oral evidence |
|
Summary:
The Commission anticipated oral evidence to be adduced in respect of the merits of the issue, rather than the conduct of the proceedings. I do not think the distinction matters. In either case, the Umpire is entitled to hear viva voce evidence to apply s.80(c).
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 |
|
| board of referees |
right to be heard |
improper hearing |
|
| board of referees |
natural justice |
free of bias |
|
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
independent decision-making |
|
