For example, we can talk about appeal dockets, which are part of the process itself. We have observed a lack of neutrality. In fact, we see that claimants are often hurt by the manner in which the docket is prepared. There is already a prejudice in favour of the commission before a claimant even appears before the board of referees. We find that the board should be as neutral as possible so that claimants can really present their viewpoints. In fact, the board of referees should not already be prejudiced in favour of the commission before a witness is even heard.
Over the years, we have also realized that chairs and members of the board of referees have tried to make the process much more formal than it should be. It is supposed to be less official in nature so that people are comfortable giving their testimony.
In a number of cases, we've seen that members wanted proceedings to be conducted as in a court house and to be something very official. For example, in one misconduct case, an individual who was testifying, providing his version of the facts and describing his employer's comments, used swear words, but that was really what the employer had told him. However, the chair interrupted the individual to say that swear words could not be used before the board of referees. In one sense, what the chair in fact wanted was for that person to change his version of the facts, which, in our view vastly skews individuals' testimony and version of the facts. And that is obviously taken into account in the decision.
We therefore want the board of referees to return to its original mandate and not to become formal so that people really feel comfortable there. Claimants are often under considerable stress before they appear, even when they are being represented. They therefore do not know what to expect, even if an attempt is made to explain to them what is happening.
Over the years, we have also seen that the case law we submit to boards of referees is not considered. It is simply disregarded because the board states that that is part of our argument. The case law cited is obviously in the claimant's favour. We believe this should not be done. All the case law submitted should be considered because it is on the basis of that case law that the decisions are rendered.
In addition, evidence such as medical certificates, letters and the testimony of individuals who cannot appear even if sworn in is at times set aside because it is ruled to be immaterial. We wonder why some members of the board of referees do not take note of this evidence and enter it in the docket. This evidence is simply set aside. We wonder whether the idea is not simply to shorten the board sitting as much as possible, as they have a very large volume of cases to hear in a day, or to catch up on the backlog of hearings that have previously taken more time.
We have also noted signs of impatience in certain board members when testimony goes on too long, even though it concerns relevant testimony about relevant issues. Board members do not want sessions to go on too long. However, decisions are based on testimony and case law. All this puts pressure on people. Witnesses often are unable to give their entire version of the facts. The facts are thus summarized, which will obviously have a very significant impact on the decisions rendered.
In closing, I am going to focus my remarks back on the board of referees and appeals. When we meet the people we defend, they often find it curious that the hearings are held right in the offices of Service Canada. In their opinion, it's as though the board of referees had already sided with the commission because they feel this is not a neutral location. They wonder whether the members of the board of referees work for the commission or are really from the commission. What we tell them is that they are neutral, impartial and objective. Perhaps some consideration should be given to the possibility of holding hearings in a more neutral locations to ensure objectivity and impartiality for claimants.