The legislation provides that the decision of the Board of Referees must be in writing. The Chairperson must file the written decision at the office of the Commission from which notice of the Commission's decision was received. The appellant and any other party interested in the appeal are to be notified in writing of the Board's decision.
Subsection 114(3) Employment Insurance Act
Subsections 83(3) and (4) Employment Insurance Regulations
Where a member of the Board dissents from the decision of the Board, the reason for the dissent is to be recorded in the report of the proceedings of the Board.
Subsection 83(2) Employment Insurance Regulations
The legislation also provides that the decision of the Board of Referees must include a statement of the findings of the Board on questions of fact material to the decision. A Board's failure to state the findings of fact on which its decision is based constitutes an error of law.
Subsection 114(3) Employment Insurance Act
Bouchard v. Canada (Unemployment Insurance Commission Board of Referees) [1977], F.C.J. No. 1101 (F.C.A.) A-521-77
Matheodakis v. C.E.I.C., [1981] 2 F.C. 813 (F.C.A.) A-1-81
Canada (A.G.) v. Sharma, October 15, 1985, F.C.J. No. 920 (F.C.A.) A-1466-84
This legislative requirement is met provided the Board states its findings on the central question of fact material to its decision. However, the Board is not required to also state its findings on all of the constituent sub-questions which are before it. Hearings before the Board and its decisions are intended to be an informal process for resolving the problems of ordinary people. The Board's reasons should not be read microscopically.
Roberts v. Canada (Employment and Immigration Commission), May 9, 1985, F.C.J. No. 413 (F.C.A.) A-595-84
Cox v. Canada (A.G.), March 31, 1998, F.C.J. No. 403 (F.C.A.) A-168-97
Furthermore, the legislation only requires that the decision of the Board contain a statement of its findings on questions of fact which are material to its decision. The Act does not require that the decision contain an analysis and discussion of the evidence relating to these questions. It cannot be deduced merely from the silence of the Board on a particular matter, that it neglected to take that evidence into consideration.
Lalj v. Canada (Unemployment Insurance Commission), June 6, 1978, F.C.J. No. 505 (F.C.A.) A-889-77
Nevertheless, it is imperative for Boards of Referees to address the issues actually presented to them carefully and to explain their findings in coherent and consistent reasoning. Anything less is unacceptable.
McDonald v. Canada (A.G.) February 20, 1998, F.C.J. No. 232 (F.C.A.) A-297-97
When there is an issue of credibility, the Board of Referees, in order to comply with the legislation, must state at least briefly, that it rejects certain evidence on this basis and why. When it fails to do so it errs in law.
Parks v. Canada (A.G.), June 1, 1998, F.C.J. No. 770 (F.C.A.) A-321-97
Oberde Bellefleur OP Clinique Dentaire O. Bellefleur v. Canada (A.G.), 2008 FCA 13 A-139-07
[ previous | table of contents | next ]
2011-01-24