CHAPTER 3
Archived Content
Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, please contact us to request an alternate format.
EVIDENCE
3.8 Closing of the Hearing
Once all the parties have given their evidence (i.e., called their witnesses, tendered their documents and made oral submissions), the chairperson or presiding judge closes the proceedings. Oral submissions may consist of a summary of the evidence, arguments and conclusions. This stage is much less formal in administrative tribunals than in courts. The formal order found in the courts is not acceptable before administrative tribunals because such tribunals do not really have separate evidence and argument stages. The most important thing is for each party to have a reasonable opportunity to advance its grounds, bearing in mind the reasons for administrative justice (such as promptness and informality).
It is customary for the chairperson to ask each party if he or she has anything to add before the court or tribunal is closed. Occasionally this elicits irrelevant statements from people, such as statements that the Act is too strict or the Commission is intransigent, threats to appeal a decision if one does not win, or calls for compassion or understanding. Chairpersons must politely shorten such statements if they become excessive. They must avoid getting involved in a debate on them. At the very most, they may preface their closing remarks with a brief restatement.
Chairpersons should announce that the board will take the matter under advisement and render a decision as quickly as possible based on the evidence, the Act and the relevant case law. They may refer to s. 83 of the Regulations Section 83 of the Regulations. They should thank the parties and their representatives for their co-operation. They must avoid showing any special sympathy for a claimant (e.g., by wishing him or her good luck or dwelling on the understanding attitude of the board, or by making unflattering remarks about the attitude or behaviour of the Commission). Such statements are to be made in the decision, if at all.
[ previous Previous page | table of contents | next Next page ]