[13] Next, the appellant argues that subsection 18.15(3) of the Act entitled him to have his evidence considered on a less onerous and technical standard in accordance with the objective of the informal procedure. This argument fails as well. This provision of the Act has been interpreted by our Court to mean that the rules for the admission of evidence do not apply technically in the context of the informal procedure. As such, while subsection 18.15(3) of the Act is relevant to the admissibility of evidence in the informal procedure, it does not entitle the appellant to a more favourable weighting of certain portions of his evidence – i.e. the oral evidence in this case (Suchon v. Canada, 2002 FCA 282, 291 N.R. 250; Selmeci v. Canada, 2002 FCA 293, 292 N.R. 182 at paras. 4-10)
18.15(3) says:
Hearing(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Act under which the appeal arises, the Court is not bound by any legal or technical rules of evidence in conducting a hearing and the appeal shall be dealt with by the Court as informally and expeditiously as the circumstances and considerations of fairness permit.
Barnwell v. Canada 2016 FCA 150 (Boivin, Rennie, Gleason JJ.A.)