Decision A-0418.97
Full Text of Decision A-0418.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
hearings |
attendance of third party |
|
Summary:
Commission employees need not present themselves for cross-examination before a BOR where alleged admissions by claimants are found within notes prepared by the Commission. The BOR is entitled to make a specific finding that a claimant is a credible witness notwithstanding conflicting statements found within notes taken by Commission staff during an interview. In the end, it is the role of the BOR to determine what weight, if any, should be given to them.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
assess credibility |
duty |
| week of unemployment |
full working week |
|
|
| week of unemployment |
minor in extent |
|
|
| penalties |
proof |
|
|
Decision 26564
Full Text of Decision 26564
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
hearings |
attendance of third party |
|
Summary:
Counsel for the claimant objected to the presence of the Commission's investigator at the hearing. Held that the investigator was entitled to be present and that it is not abnormal for an officer of the Commisision to attend a hearing.
Decision 25210
Full Text of Decision 25210
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
hearings |
attendance of third party |
|
Summary:
At the hearing before the Board, claimant and the employer had witnesses present to support their respective versions of the events. The Board dismissed them saying it had enough evidence and did not need to hear from any witnesses other than the actual parties. This was a gross denial of natural justice.
Decision 25116
Full Text of Decision 25116
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
hearings |
attendance of third party |
|
Summary:
Held that neither the Board nor the Commission are obligated to notify claimant's legal counsel of the Board's decision if counsel as not supplied the Commission with the required authorization in accordance with the Privacy and Access Act.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
natural justice |
notice of hearing |
|
Decision 24974
Full Text of Decision 24974
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
hearings |
attendance of third party |
|
Summary:
Claimant appeals on the grounds of breach of natural justice because he was unaware that his former employer would be present or that witnesses were permitted. He ought to have raised his concerns about the procedure and requested an adjournment. Failing this, I can see no breach of natural justice.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
criminal acts |
|
|
Decision 24699
Full Text of Decision 24699
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
hearings |
attendance of third party |
|
Summary:
Claimant left the course because he was frustrated with the way the course was being conducted. There is not any lack of natural justice, in the legal sense, in the Board not requiring one of the instructors to testify as claimant wished him to do. The Board has no autority to issue subpoenas.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| courses of instruction or training |
failure to attend |
leaving the course |
|
Decision 11942
Full Text of Decision 11942
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
hearings |
attendance of third party |
|
Summary:
The employer believed that claimant divulged confidential information to competitor and dismissed her. Competitor had agreed to attend hearing but Board said it was not proper. So claimant did not have a fair hearing. New hearing ordered.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
court judgments or out-of-court settlements |
|
|
Decision 11622
Full Text of Decision 11622
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
hearings |
attendance of third party |
|
Summary:
A newly appointed chairperson attended the hearing as observer and did not partake in the hearing nor in the decision-making. The evidence is that that person had no influence in the Board's decision contrary to what claimant alleged.
Decision T-1689.85
Full Text of Decision T-1689.85
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
hearings |
attendance of third party |
|
Summary:
Case adjourned by Board. Study of brief compelling the chairman to request attendance of third party. Premature step. No obligation to request this attendance. Case to be heard. If there is a breach of the principles of natural justice, the Umpire could intervene.
Decision A-0247.80
Full Text of Decision A-0247.80
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
hearings |
attendance of third party |
|
Summary:
Applicants, here the CEIC, have burden of showing that board erred and, in order to discharge this burden, may require that witnesses attend if they consider it necessary.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
right to cross-examine |
|
|
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
by telephone |
|
Decision A-0613.77
Full Text of Decision A-0613.77
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
hearings |
attendance of third party |
|
Summary:
Board of Referees forced the claimant and his counsel to withdraw from the hearing for a CEIC employee and refused to hear the claimant’s witness. New hearing ordered to give the claimant a full opportunity to present his case and to hear all the evidence presented to the BOR.
Decision 19512
Full Text of Decision 19512
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
hearings |
by telephone |
|
Summary:
Claimant requested a phone hearing. Option not available in area served by Board Centre. I do not consider this to be an adequate justification. Not apparent to me why this should be impossible in Vancouver and claimant should have been informed and given option to attend.
Decision 15504
Full Text of Decision 15504
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
hearings |
by telephone |
|
Summary:
The hearing reconvened on 27-8-86. Both hearings were conducted by telephone. I consider that this procedure of conducting hearings by telephone is far from satisfactory and should not be followed, barring exceptional circumstances.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
income |
in kind |
|
| earnings |
income |
between spouses |
|
Decision 12352A
Full Text of Decision 12352A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
hearings |
by telephone |
|
Summary:
It has now been decided by the Court of Appeal that a telephone hearing does not constitute a fair hearing before a Board. Had the Board heard him in person it might properly have decided to impose the disentitlement only from mid-March. Case referred back to Board.
Decision 13758
Full Text of Decision 13758
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
hearings |
by telephone |
|
Summary:
This is not reprehensible in itself and may well accommodate the parties, not to mention reducing costs, but the time must be taken to read the documents relied on.
Decision 12441
Full Text of Decision 12441
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
hearings |
by telephone |
|
Summary:
Misconduct and contradictory evidence. Wrongly dismissed according to Labour Board. Where credibility is involved, telephone hearings are not satisfactory. Here, the 2 protagonists were present. With reluctance, I find there must be a hearing in person.
There is no doubt that Boards are entitled to conduct their hearings in a variety of ways, including by telephone conference. In some circumstances a fair hearing will require a hearing in person. Such a case arises when the credibility of claimant or others is really in issue.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Decision 12431
Full Text of Decision 12431
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
hearings |
by telephone |
|
Summary:
I am not criticizing the use of telephone hearings but how can anyone assess the credibility of a witness, whether or not to accept his statement that he did not receive a letter, without seeing him in person.
Decision 12430
Full Text of Decision 12430
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
hearings |
by telephone |
|
Summary:
I am not making any general rule that there must always be a hearing with claimant personally present. But where there are serious questions of dispute apparent on the face of the record, the Board should give serious consideration about dispensing withtelephone hearings. [p. 5]
Decision 12351
Full Text of Decision 12351
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
hearings |
by telephone |
|
Summary:
In this case, the procedure used [telephone hearing] was most unsatisfactory. The decision depended largely on credibility. The positions taken were completely opposite. A tribunal could only decide by hearing and seeing the protagonists in person.
Decision 12343
Full Text of Decision 12343
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
hearings |
by telephone |
|
Summary:
One problem is that the Board of Referees does not see the claimant in person and is not affected by the claimant's personality or argument. One cannot judge people by the sound of their voice. Much better an eye-ball to eye-ball meeting.
Decision 12352
Full Text of Decision 12352
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
hearings |
by telephone |
|
Summary:
It is strange that Umpires are willing to sit at places of convenience to claimants while the Commission or Boards do not always do that.
Decision 12220
Full Text of Decision 12220
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
hearings |
by telephone |
|
Summary:
Question at issue: penalty. This is unfortunate in that the test of credibility of a claimant, the give and take of an enquiry having all the parties in personal attendance were ingredients which the Board had, of necessity, to do without. [p. 4]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
rationale |
|
|
| penalties |
proof |
need for an explanation |
|
Decision 11940
Full Text of Decision 11940
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
hearings |
by telephone |
|
Summary:
I have no hesitation in saying that board did not not fail to observe principles of natural justice even though hearing held by telephone. Use of telephone did not alter fairness of hearing.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
natural justice |
defined |
|
| basic concepts |
insurability |
minimum insurable |
|
| reconsideration of claim |
factual cases |
record of employment erroneous |
|
Decision 13092
Full Text of Decision 13092
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
hearings |
city |
|
Summary:
The claimant contends that she was not well served by having appeal heard in Hamilton. Board members not sensitive to local conditions of a community such as Bearskin Lake. This point is well taken. This is the reason for having local Boards hear appeals.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
natural justice |
defined |
|
Decision 29357
Full Text of Decision 29357
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
hearings |
person having immediate interest |
|
Summary:
Whether employer has an immediate interest under reg. 69(6). If claimant alleges harassment, dangerous conditions or illegal practices, the employer's interest is obvious. Where, as here, claimant relies on a health problem, the employer's interest is neither immediate nor direct and I so rule.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
adjournment of hearing |
|
Decision A-0332.04
Full Text of Decision A-0332.04
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
hearings |
tape-recording |
|
Summary:
The Umpire had concluded that failure to properly record the hearing before a BOR was a violation of a principle of natural justice. The Court concluded that an Umpire has to consider whether the written record was sufficient to enable him to determine the appeal.
Decision A-0238.03
Full Text of Decision A-0238.03
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
hearings |
tape-recording |
|
Summary:
The Court found that the failure to provide the claimant with a copy of the tape of the BOR proceedings does not necessarily mean that there has been a breach of natural justice. It stated that the Umpire erred in law by failing to consider whether the written record is sufficient to allow for a determination of the matter.
Decision 58006A
Full Text of Decision 58006A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
hearings |
tape-recording |
|
Summary:
Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0332.04
Decision 54497A
Full Text of Decision 54497A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
hearings |
tape-recording |
|
Summary:
Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0238.03
Decision A-0460.00
Full Text of Decision A-0460.00
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
hearings |
tape-recording |
|
Summary:
Claimant argued that a recording is a transcript within the meaning of the Regulations, and that a reproduction of the exchanges at the hearing of the case by the BOR should be in the appeal file. The Umpire ruled that the two terms did not mean the same thing, and that if there had been no recording at the time of the hearing, there consequently could not be any transcript of the testimonies. Application for judicial review summarily dismissed by the FCA.
Decision 48388
Full Text of Decision 48388
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
hearings |
tape-recording |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0460.00
Decision 38175
Full Text of Decision 38175
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
hearings |
tape-recording |
|
Summary:
A portion of the content of the original cassette was missing and part of the proceedings before the Board of Referees was not recorded. Umpire believes it would contravene the principles of natural justice to hand down a decision without having complete evidence of what occurred before the Board. Under the circumstances, a new Board should be held so that, on an appeal, an Umpire has on hand complete evidence of the proceedings.
Decision 34664
Full Text of Decision 34664
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
hearings |
tape-recording |
|
Summary:
Claimant's representative requested a copy of the tape hearing before the Board. Tape lost and legal counsel wanted case referred to a new Board. Umpire stated that claimant was not prejudiced by not having the recording and received a fair hearing.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
legal costs |
|
Decision 29199
Full Text of Decision 29199
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
hearings |
tape-recording |
|
Summary:
Board's decision partly based on a statement that claimant categorically denies having made at the hearing. In the absence of a tape, he cannot have the oral evidence reviewed to verify his position. As in CUB 26426, this vitiates the possibility of a fair hearing of this appeal.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
refusal to work overtime |
|
|
Decision 27351
Full Text of Decision 27351
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
hearings |
tape-recording |
|
Summary:
One of the basic principles of natural justice in circumstances such as this is to preserve the tapes of proceedings before the Board until the expiry of the appeal period. As soon as an appeal is filed, the tapes should be made available to the claimant, if requested. Here, he requested them.
It is a violation of a basic principle of natural justice to deny the claimant access to the tapes when he has been asked and gave his permission to tape the proceedings and when he made a specific request for the resulting tapes.
Decision 26426
Full Text of Decision 26426
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
hearings |
tape-recording |
|
Summary:
Tapes kept up to 1 year from the appeal date. Claimant's notice of appeal was received by Commission one month after the Board's ruling. From that day forward, the record, including the tapes, should have remained intact. Their absence vitiates the possibility of a fair and proper hearing.
Decision 23880
Full Text of Decision 23880
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
hearings |
tape-recording |
|
Summary:
The Commission has destroyed the tape of the oral proceedings before the Board. Thus, it is impossible to know what oral evidence was given. Since this is a Commission appeal and it is the Commission which destroyed the tape, I think that is sufficient reason to dismiss the Commission's appeal.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
trust fund |
|
Decision 22610
Full Text of Decision 22610
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
hearings |
tape-recording |
|
Summary:
While his assertions regarding the turning off of the tape recording device could leave the impression that the Board had refused to hear relevant evidence, an appellant must do more than make a general statement. He must bring forward examples of relevant evidence that the Board refused to hear.
Decision 20780
Full Text of Decision 20780
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
hearings |
tape-recording |
|
Summary:
Denial of natural justice alleged because the proceedings were not taped. No such legal requirement. It is certainly desirable that they be taped. I cannot comprehend why the Board would refuse claimant to make his own recording. But this does not amount to reviewable error.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
misinformation from Commission |
|
|
Decision 20432
Full Text of Decision 20432
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
hearings |
tape-recording |
|
Summary:
Appeal deals solely with unfounded refusal of Board's president to allow the recording of case. In CUB-19785, the question was simply brought to CEIC's attention without making it into a valid reason for appeal. I intend adopting the same attitude in this case.
Decision 18459A
Full Text of Decision 18459A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
hearings |
tape-recording |
|
Summary:
Claimant's counsel objected to proceeding with the appeal because of the lack of a transcript. This objection is without merit. There is no requirement on the part of Boards to take or make verbatim records of their hearings.
Decision 17929
Full Text of Decision 17929
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
hearings |
tape-recording |
|
Summary:
Rules of natural justice or fairness allegedly violated. Those are serious allegations not lightly dismissed. As has been noted in other cases, it is unfortunate that some means of recording or transcription is not kept of Board hearings so as to betterjudge such allegations.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
applicability |
request for information |
|
Decision A-0078.89
Full Text of Decision A-0078.89
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
hearings |
tape-recording |
|
Summary:
States he testified at the hearing and evidenced that the information on file was erroneous. All we know is what the Board reported. In the absence of a transcript or other evidence, the Umpire could conclude that the Board accurately reported what transpired at the hearing.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
proof |
|
|
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
without regard for material |
|
Decision 16177
Full Text of Decision 16177
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
hearings |
tape-recording |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0078.89
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
proof |
|
|
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
without regard for material |
|
Decision 16107
Full Text of Decision 16107
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
hearings |
tape-recording |
|
Summary:
Claimant argues that one member was very biased. Since no recording or transcripts are kept of Board hearings, it is very difficult for an Umpire to find out what happened. Here, claimant chose not to appear before me. Invalidity of decision not established.
Decision 15216
Full Text of Decision 15216
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
hearings |
tape-recording |
|
Summary:
As I have said before, in the absence of transcripts being kept of Boards hearings, the only evidence I have as to what went on in that forum is that placed before me by claimant and her representative. I have no reason to doubt that evidence. It is entirely credible.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
| board of referees |
right to be heard |
improper hearing |
|
| penalties |
proof |
need for an explanation |
|
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
by telephone |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
relations at work |
unhappy atmosphere |
|
Decision 13820
Full Text of Decision 13820
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
hearings |
tape-recording |
|
Summary:
The Commission should adopt the practice of recording proceedings before the Boards. Written transcripts not necessary but some sort of typed or video-taped record could be made.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
observations from the Commission |
|
|
| labour dispute |
participation |
picket lines |
|
| board of referees |
natural justice |
free of bias |
|
Decision 11317A
Full Text of Decision 11317A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
hearings |
tape-recording |
|
Summary:
Since no transcripts are kept of proceedings before the referees the only evidence of what occurs at those proceedings is that attested to by persons who were there: in this case, the claimant and his counsel.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
real estate salespersons |
|
|
| board of referees |
observations from the Commission |
|
|
Decision 12573
Full Text of Decision 12573
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
hearings |
tape-recording |
|
Summary:
I cannot agree that the refusal by the Board to allow the proceedings before it to be tape-recorded amounted to a denial of fair hearing. I do not understand why permission was refused. Under reg. 64(6), the Chairman determines the procedure.
