Summary of Issue: By Telephone

Decision 28600 Full Text of Decision 28600

Boards are not bound by strict rules of evidence. They may receive and accept hearsay evidence and, all the more reason, the employer's evidence submitted via the telephone. The fact that the employer or the employee is present at the hearing while the other is not is not a determining factor.

Decision 25991 Full Text of Decision 25991

Ambiguous statement put on file by CEIC officer after a phone conversation. No evidence that the employer ever saw the statement or had it read to him. This kind of evidence is simply not good enough when a finding of misconduct carries the heavy sanction of loss of many thousands of dollars.

Decision 21964 Full Text of Decision 21964

The principal evidence is an unsigned statement purportedly based on a telephone interview with a representative of the employer. Such statements must be viewed with great reservation, being unsigned, they do not really commit the employer to any particular position.

Decision 21971 Full Text of Decision 21971

The report prepared by a CEIC officer of a telephone interview with a representative of the employer, a report which the employer's representative has never seen and has not signed, must be viewed with some scepticism. It was certainly open to the Boardto give it limited weight.

Decision 21532 Full Text of Decision 21532

The main evidence was the CEIC agent's handwritten summary of a telephone interview with claimant. It was within the Board's right to give limited weight to it. Such summaries, when neither seen or approved by claimants at the time they are made, are intrinsically unreliable.

Decision 19516 Full Text of Decision 19516

While it is correct to introduce hearsay evidence, in matters of this importance (serious misconduct) the best evidence should be produced. Records of interviews should be signed by employer. Too easy to make allegations over the phone. Subject to very high level of deniability.

Decision 15216 Full Text of Decision 15216

Ample jurisprudence that Boards should be slow to accept hearsay evidence, as it exists in reports of phone calls written by Commission agents, in the face of credible oral evidence given by claimant to contrary when employer is not present to give direct oral evidence.

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.