Summary of Issue: Witnesses

Decision 63144 Full Text of Decision 63144

The claimant's counsel asked to bring forward a witness whom he had wanted to bring forward before the Board of Referees. The judge stated that it was established in case law that the appeal from a Board's decision to an Umpire must normally be confined to the record before the Board and that the counsel, who was present at the BOR hearing, could have brought this witness before the Board.

Decision 24324 Full Text of Decision 24324

Claimant's request is to reopen the hearing and hear one witness. No substantive reason is given as to why the witness could not be called before the Board. It is not suggested what this new evidence may be. This would not be a proper exercise of my discretion and would be contrary to s. 80.

Decision 20677A Full Text of Decision 20677A

Counsel sought to present new witnesses. These were known at the time of the Board hearing but they were allegedly unable to testify due to illness. He admitted that no adjournment had been sought. I refused to hear the witnesses, such extraordinary procedure not being permitted.

Decision 17150 Full Text of Decision 17150

The Board ruled that there was no proof of misconduct. On appeal, the employer was prepared to produce persons as witnesses. I declined to hear new evidence on credibility which is a matter for the Board. This was available at time of the Board hearing.Not entitled to have it heard now.

Decision 10889 Full Text of Decision 10889

Claimant wanted to testify under oath before the Umpire. S.80 does not provide for a new trial but for an appeal. Credibility was for the Board and is not for the Umpire. Of course, if new evidence were discovered since the hearing of the Board, I wouldhear it or send it to the Board.