| 1 |
| Decision A-0839.97 Full Text | | Issue: | Sub-Issue 1: | Sub-Issue 2: | Sub-Issue 3: | | board of referees | weight of statements | credibility | | Summary:
Considering the claimant’s duties as president of the company and the amount of money invested, the BOR refused to accept the claimant’s version of the facts regarding the amount of time spent on the business. The Umpire found that the BOR did not err in law in its decision and the BOR’s reasons are consistent with current jurisprudence (reference to Jouan, A-366-94). The FCA ruled that the BOR’s finding is reasonable and, in fact, irrefutable before the Umpire and dismissed the claimant’s appeal. | | Other Issue(s): | Sub-Issue 1: | Sub-Issue 2: | Sub-Issue 3: | | week of unemployment | minor in extent | | |
| | |
| Decision A-0840.97 Full Text | | Issue: | Sub-Issue 1: | Sub-Issue 2: | Sub-Issue 3: | | board of referees | weight of statements | credibility | | Summary:
Case identical to A-0839.97. See summary indexed under that reference. | | Other Issue(s): | Sub-Issue 1: | Sub-Issue 2: | Sub-Issue 3: | | week of unemployment | minor in extent | | |
| | |
| Decision 40377 Full Text | | Issue: | Sub-Issue 1: | Sub-Issue 2: | Sub-Issue 3: | | board of referees | weight of statements | credibility | | Summary:
Clmt declared having left his job to travel overseas. The trip being cancelled, he applied for benefits. Before the BOR, he said he had informed the employer of his intention to quit his job and that his employer had dismissed him before his anticipated departure date. BOR took into account only the claimant’s testimony rather than all the evidence and overlooked the clmt’s declaration on his application and that of the employer on theROE which clearly indicated a voluntary quit. |
| | |
| Decision 40214 Full Text | | Issue: | Sub-Issue 1: | Sub-Issue 2: | Sub-Issue 3: | | board of referees | weight of statements | credibility | | Summary:
Aware that an Umpire’s opinion cannot be substituted for that of a BOR when an assessment of credibility of the evidence on a question of fact is involved, Umpire deemed that the facts uncontested by the claimants as justification for their dismissal went beyond an assessment of credibility. | | Other Issue(s): | Sub-Issue 1: | Sub-Issue 2: | Sub-Issue 3: | | umpires | grounds of appeal | without regard for material | | | board of referees | issue not recognized | error by board | |
| | |
| Decision 39868 Full Text | | Issue: | Sub-Issue 1: | Sub-Issue 2: | Sub-Issue 3: | | board of referees | weight of statements | credibility | | Summary:
The employer and claimant both assumed the opposite view of whether firing or dismissal took place. In the absence of evidence supporting the employer's version, the Umpire supported the BOR's decision by giving the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. | | Other Issue(s): | Sub-Issue 1: | Sub-Issue 2: | Sub-Issue 3: | | proof | weight of statements | | |
| | |
| Decision 38254 Full Text | | Issue: | Sub-Issue 1: | Sub-Issue 2: | Sub-Issue 3: | | board of referees | weight of statements | credibility | | Summary:
One of the functions of a Board when faced with contradictory evidence, such as here the Employer's statements vary with those of the claimant, their role and duty is to determine the credibility of the conflicting evidence, and to determine what weight to put upon it. | | Other Issue(s): | Sub-Issue 1: | Sub-Issue 2: | Sub-Issue 3: | | proof | weight of statements | | | | board of referees | jurisdiction | reason for existence of boards | |
| | |
| Decision A-1002.96 Full Text | | Issue: | Sub-Issue 1: | Sub-Issue 2: | Sub-Issue 3: | | board of referees | weight of statements | credibility | | Summary:
Claimant alleged that the Board of Referees violated the principles of natural justice and erred in law in giving preference to hearsay evidence over his oral testimony before the BOR. Umpire found that the BOR was not bound by the technical rules of evidence with apply before the ordinary courts of law and that it may consequently receive and accept hearsay evidence. FCA upheld the Umpire’s decision.
| | Other Issue(s): | Sub-Issue 1: | Sub-Issue 2: | Sub-Issue 3: | | board of referees | jurisdiction | assess credibility | duty |
| | |
| Decision A-0270.96 Full Text | | Issue: | Sub-Issue 1: | Sub-Issue 2: | Sub-Issue 3: | | board of referees | weight of statements | credibility | | Summary:
Umpire ruled that it was up to the Board of Referees to consider the ultimate question, which concerned not only which of the two versions had to be preferred, but whether, even if the employer’s version were set aside, the testimony of the claimant could be relied upon, given his previous statements. The BOR had a duty to weigh the testimony and previous statements with care, but preferred to accept the claimant’s testimony and ignored the contradictions on the record. The FCA agreed with the Umpire’s decision to set aside the decision of the BOR. | | Other Issue(s): | Sub-Issue 1: | Sub-Issue 2: | Sub-Issue 3: | | board of referees | errors in law | decision incomplete | various | | board of referees | errors in law | weight of statements | |
| | |
| Decision 28600 Full Text | | Issue: | Sub-Issue 1: | Sub-Issue 2: | Sub-Issue 3: | | board of referees | weight of statements | credibility | | Summary:
When faced with contradictory testimonies on the part of the employer and the employee, the mere fact that one is present at the hearing and the other not should not be a determining factor. The Board is free to deem one more credible that the other. | | 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 24370A Full Text | | Issue: | Sub-Issue 1: | Sub-Issue 2: | Sub-Issue 3: | | board of referees | weight of statements | credibility | | Summary:
The Board simply concludes by finding that the employer was apparently more credible than the employee. There is no explanation for how and why the Board came to this conclusion. The Board had the duty to give some examples or justification why. The absence of such finding is an error in law. |
| | |
| Decision 21528 Full Text | | Issue: | Sub-Issue 1: | Sub-Issue 2: | Sub-Issue 3: | | board of referees | weight of statements | credibility | | Summary:
The Board did not have regard to claimant's signed statement that farming was his main livelihood, that he worked at it all day. The Board adopted his statements, in the telephone hearing, without regard to the fact that he had not worked off the farm during the farming season. | | Other Issue(s): | Sub-Issue 1: | Sub-Issue 2: | Sub-Issue 3: | | week of unemployment | farming | self-employed | | | umpires | grounds of appeal | without regard for material | |
| | |
| Decision 18905 Full Text | | Issue: | Sub-Issue 1: | Sub-Issue 2: | Sub-Issue 3: | | board of referees | weight of statements | credibility | | Summary:
Gave several reasons for quitting his job in 1st statement and health reasons specifically excluded. Contradicted himself later and said main reason was medical. Credibility weakened to the point where the Board could properly doubt the truth of the other reasons for quitting. |
| | |
| Decision 18671 Full Text | | Issue: | Sub-Issue 1: | Sub-Issue 2: | Sub-Issue 3: | | board of referees | weight of statements | credibility | | Summary:
A number of documents in the file such as the lease and a document form the protonotary testify to the insured person's involvement in the company. By giving more value to evidence contradicting that, the Board did not take account of the points brought to its knowledge. | | Other Issue(s): | Sub-Issue 1: | Sub-Issue 2: | Sub-Issue 3: | | umpires | grounds of appeal | without regard for material | |
| | |
| Decision 18063 Full Text | | Issue: | Sub-Issue 1: | Sub-Issue 2: | Sub-Issue 3: | | board of referees | weight of statements | credibility | | Summary:
The Commission argues that it is highly unlikely that an officer would give claimant the advice which she alleges she was given since it is not in keeping with the procedures. The Board must weigh this evidence of standard procedures against the credibility of her explanation. | | Other Issue(s): | Sub-Issue 1: | Sub-Issue 2: | Sub-Issue 3: | | penalties | misinformation from commission | | | | penalties | proof | | | | board of referees | statement of facts | not to be read strictly | | | board of referees | weight of statements | under oath | | | penalties | proof | need for an explanation | | | board of referees | jurisdiction | assess credibility | duty |
| | |
| Decision 15034 Full Text | | Issue: | Sub-Issue 1: | Sub-Issue 2: | Sub-Issue 3: | | board of referees | weight of statements | credibility | | Summary:
Referees ought to scrutinize employer's statements with every bit as much care as they scrutinize employees' statements. If they initially approach employees' statements with a grain of skepticism, so they ought also to approach employers' statements. No double standard. | | Other Issue(s): | Sub-Issue 1: | Sub-Issue 2: | Sub-Issue 3: | | board of referees | weight of statements | from employer | |
| | |
| Decision 14833 Full Text | | Issue: | Sub-Issue 1: | Sub-Issue 2: | Sub-Issue 3: | | board of referees | weight of statements | credibility | | Summary:
When assessing the conflicting evidence of individuals, it is not enough to focus on their demeanour (pleasant or unpleasant) and appearance. One should ask "what makes sense in the situation". | | Other Issue(s): | Sub-Issue 1: | Sub-Issue 2: | Sub-Issue 3: | | board of referees | observations from the Commission | | | | board of referees | right to be heard | improper hearing | | | voluntarily leaving employment | applicability | tantamount to dismissal | | | board of referees | jurisdiction | comments on conduct of hearing | |
| | |
| Decision 10150 Full Text | | Issue: | Sub-Issue 1: | Sub-Issue 2: | Sub-Issue 3: | | board of referees | weight of statements | credibility | | Summary:
Just as the tribunal can hear and is entitled to weigh in the scales of credibility an answer uttered and abandoned for a different oral answer, so the tribunal may, in assessing credibility, view a crossed-out, but still legible, written answer. |
| | |
| Decision 09326 Full Text | | Issue: | Sub-Issue 1: | Sub-Issue 2: | Sub-Issue 3: | | board of referees | weight of statements | credibility | | Summary:
I cannot fail to note how different was the claimant's explanation on 8-7 about her leaving from what it was as given by her on 10-3. Her obvious failure on 8-7 to refer to the reasons given by her on 10-3 could not help but go to the question of her credibility. |
| | |
| 1 |
