| Issue: | Sub-Issue1 | Sub-Issue2 | Sub-Issue3 | | board of referees | right of being represented |
Summary: They chose their representative, and absent some kind of fraud, the quality of the representation is of no concern to the Tribunal. If every dissatisfied client, after the fact, could challenge his representatives' handling of his case, there would be no end to the litigation. Not disturbed by FCA. |
| Issue: | Sub-Issue1 | Sub-Issue2 | Sub-Issue3 | | proof | errors in law | burden of proof |
Summary: Board's right to rely on statutory declarations not sworn was challenged. Held that BOR has a broad discretion in considering, attaching weight, accepting or rejecting evidence adduced before it. Not bound by rules of evidence in the way that a judicialtrier of fact is bound. Not disturbed by FCA. |
| Issue: | Sub-Issue1 | Sub-Issue2 | Sub-Issue3 | | board of referees | errors in law | burden of proof |
Summary: Board's right to rely on statutory declarations not sworn was challenged. Held that BOR has a broad discretion in considering, attaching weight, accepting or rejecting evidence adduced before it. Not bound by rules of evidence in the way that a judicialtrier of fact is bound. Not disturbed by FCA. |
| Issue: | Sub-Issue1 | Sub-Issue2 | Sub-Issue3 | | proof | errors in law | rules of evidence |
Summary: Board's right to rely on statutory declarations not sworn was challenged. Held that BOR has a broad discretion in considering, attaching weight, accepting or rejecting evidence adduced before it. Not bound by rules of evidence in the way that a judicialtrier of fact is bound. Not disturbed by FCA. |
| Issue: | Sub-Issue1 | Sub-Issue2 | Sub-Issue3 | | board of referees | right to be heard | language to be used |
Summary: Alleged by representative that the BOR failed to ascertain the competency of claimants' interpreters. Umpire held that where the interpreter is the appellant's selectee, it should be safe to assume that his/her competency has been acknowledged and accepted by the appellant. Not disturbed by the FCA. |
| Issue: | Sub-Issue1 | Sub-Issue2 | Sub-Issue3 | | week of unemployment | farming | full working week |
Summary: Alleged that contrary to Reg.42(2), no evidence submitted that claimant worked 5 days/week. Held that BOR was entitled to accept evidence as being probative of the fact that, by doing 60-70 hours each week, she had worked at least a 5-day week without the specific statement being made. Upheld by FCA |
