CUB 53393
Heard at Toronto, Ontario on January 18, 2002.
IN THE MATTER of the Employment Insurance Act
- and -
IN THE MATTER of a claim for benefits by
LAURA TAYLOR
- and -
IN THE MATTER of an appeal by the claimant to the Umpire from the decision of a
Board of Referees rendered at North York on May 29, 2001.
D E C I S I O N
W.J. GRANT, UMPIRE:
This is an appeal by the claimant from the unanimous decision of a Board of Referees given at North York, Ontario on May 29, 2001 dismissing the claimant's appeal from the decision of the Insurance Officer that she voluntarily left her employment without just cause.
This appeal by the claimant is under Section 115.2 of the Employment Insurance Act with no sub-section cited.
The Board, in its decision, in Exhibit 10-2 made the finding that the claimant came across in an honest and forthright manner. By this I take it that the Board accepted her credibility. The Board also found that the claimant had been under some stress relating to work and was not eating or sleeping properly. She had seen a doctor and there was no medical report presented.
The claimant in her submission, dated January 16, 2002, stated that after she left the hearing and before the decision was rendered she went back to the hearing room to retrieve a scarf and found the referees and the employer representatives together who were laughing and talking. I rely on the opinion of the Board relating to the claimant's credibility and, therefore, accept her statement as being correct.
The Board is to be truly independent of the parties. If they knew one of the parties, in this instance, the employer, any Board member who did know that person should have stood aside and not have been a member of the panel hearing this appeal. If no member of the Board had known the employer representative personally then why were they talking and laughing while the Board was apparently in the process of making its decision or preparatory to doing so? This, in my opinion, is inexcusable. A Board must not only be impartial but must appear to be impartial. That is one of the basic rules of a quasi judicial Board.
Generally, claimants who appear unrepresented before Boards have no knowledge of what is expected of them. In this instance there was evidence that the claimant had consulted a doctor concerning her condition, but did not have any report from the doctor to give to the Board. There is no mention of this in the representations of the Commission to the Board.
I find the claimant has been denied natural justice. The Board has acted in a manner unbefitting a Board. It has given to the claimant the feeling that she did not have a fair hearing. I agree with her. I remit this appeal to a newly appointed Board to determine the issues.
At the new hearing the claimant will be able to bring forward additional information concerning her medical condition. This may be in the form of a doctor's letter or certificate.
I grant the appeal and direct that the matter be returned to a newly constituted Board to deal with the issues. The new Board should not have the decision of this Board in its file.
"W.J. Grant"
W.J. Grant
Umpire
PRESENT:
The claimant appeared on her own behalf
For the Commission:
Sharon McGovern
Dated at Halifax, Nova Scotia
January 31, 2002