Written Hearings v. Oral Hearings – the 2.5-times Factor

In a recent article in the Lawyer’s Daily by John Schofield, dealing with the Tribunal Watch Ontario and its concerns with what has been happening in the tribunals system of justice in Ontario, reference was made to a U.K. study showing that claims for disability benefits determined after an oral hearing were 2.5 times more likely to receive a favourable decision than if their claim had been determined on the basis of written submissions only.  The Schofield article may be found here: https://www.thelawyersdaily.ca/articles/19685/tribunal-watch-ontario-concerned-over-shortage-of-adjudicators-possible-shift-to-written-submissions?category=news

The link to that 2.5 times, UK study is: http://nuffieldfoundation.org/sites/default/files/files/Tribunal_decision_making_vFINAL(1).pdf

There are 2 Ellis posts on this blog dealing with this remarkable study and its implications, both of which were re-posted recently.  See:

TRIBUNAL DECISION-MAKING – THE INFLUENCE OF ORAL HEARINGS ON OUTCOMES

at https://administrativejusticereform.ca/tribunal-decision-making-the-influence-of-oral-hearings-on-outcomes/

and

TRIBUNAL DECISION-MAKING – WHY ARE ORAL HEARINGS SO EFFICACIOUS?

at https://administrativejusticereform.ca/tribunal-decision-making-why-are-oral-hearings-so-efficacious/

Those posts are referenced again because the pressure to eliminate or minimize oral hearings is not going away.

RE

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Scroll to Top