CUB 33904A
JUDGMENT OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
Date:
19980601
Docket:
A-321-97
Umpire's Decision:
CUB 33904A
CORAM :
STRAYER, J.A.
ROBERTSON, J.A.
McDONALD, J.A.
BETWEEN :
JOHN ANDREW PARKS,
applicant,
-and-
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,
respondent.
Heard at Toronto, Ontario, Monday, June 1, 1998.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario
on Monday, June 1, 1998)
STRAYER, J.A.:
[1] This case involves the issue of whether the applicant lost his employment due to his own misconduct.
[2] The findings of the Board of Referees were stated as follows:
The Board finds that by past written and verbal warnings to the employee in respect to his duties and actions, that the employer exhibited good faith and was acting on reasonable grounds when the employee was again found to be using the Toronto tie-line contrary to their instructions, and the appellant was dismissed.
The appellant's own alleged misconduct is found by this Board to have resulted in his dismissal and consequently the disqualification is to be upheld.
[3] The Umpire dismissed an appeal from this decision. In this application for judicial review before us the applicant argues, inter alia, that the Board did not comply with the requirements of subsection 79(2) of the Unemployment Insurance Act by its failure to state its findings of fact. More particularly he argues that the Board erred in law in not stating whether it had rejected the claimant's evidence for lack of credibility and if so, by failing to state the reasons for such finding of credibility.
[4] Subsection 79(2) provides as follows:
A decision of a board of referees shall be recorded in writing and shall include a statement of the findings of the board on questions of fact material to the decision.
[5] We are all in agreement that the Board erred in law in failing to comply adequately with subsection 79(2). Specifically we are of the view that it was incumbent on the Board to state, at least briefly, that it rejected critical parts of the evidence of the applicant on grounds of credibility, and why it did so. In this case there was before the Board much written material from the employer of a hearsay nature. The affidavit evidence and oral statements of the claimant before the Board conflicted in various respects with this material. The Board simply states its conclusions without explaining why it preferred one version of events to the other.
[6] While we do not interpret subsection 79(2) to require a detailed statement of findings of fact, we are of the view that the Board of Referees, to comply with that subsection, must when there is an issue of credibility state at least briefly, as part of its "findings ... on questions of fact material to the decision", that it rejects certain evidence on this basis and why. When it fails to do so it errs in law.
[7] The decision of the Umpire will therefore be set aside, and the matter will be referred back to an Umpire with directions to set aside the decision of the Board of Referees and order a new hearing before another Board.
"B.L. Strayer"
J.A.