B.H. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission and Dollar Tree Canada

B.H. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission and Dollar Tree Canada

Because the Board conducted separate hearings without allowing the parties to test or cross-examine each other's evidence, and the decision turned on contested credibility (the panel was split), the procedural irregularity amounted to a breach of the principles of natural justice that rendered the hearing unfair; the appeal is therefore allowed and the matter remitted for reconsideration.

Citation
2014 SSTAD 102
Parties
Appellant: B.H.; Respondent Commission: Canada Employment Insurance Commission; Respondent Employer: Dollar Tree Canada Collection
Court
Social Security Tribunal of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Employment Insurance / Appeal to Appeal Division (from Board of Referees)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; matter returned for reconsideration
Legal Topics
Natural Justice, Procedural Fairness, Misconduct, Credibility Findings, Standard of Review, Grounds of Appeal S.115(2)
Source Language
English
Employment Insurance Administrative Law Labour Law Tribunal Procedure Natural Justice Procedural Fairness Misconduct Credibility Findings +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

B.H.

Appellant

Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Respondent Commission

Dollar Tree Canada Collection

Respondent Employer

Procedural Posture

Employment Insurance / Appeal to Appeal Division (from Board of Referees)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the board of referees breached the principles of natural justice by holding separate hearings and denying parties the opportunity to test each other's evidence
  2. 2 Whether the majority's adverse credibility findings were reasonable given the procedural irregularity
  3. 3 Which standard of review applies to the issues on appeal (law/jurisdiction vs fact/mixed)

Ratio Decidendi

Because the Board conducted separate hearings without allowing the parties to test or cross-examine each other's evidence, and the decision turned on contested credibility (the panel was split), the procedural irregularity amounted to a breach of the principles of natural justice that rendered the hearing unfair; the appeal is therefore allowed and the matter remitted for reconsideration.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; matter returned for reconsideration

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Return the case to the General Division (Board of Referees) for reconsideration