Antedate

Archived Content

Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, please contact us to request an alternate format.

[  table of contents  |  next  ]



Benefit of the Doubt

CUB 52024 Umipre Decision -The Board found that the claimant quit her job because her mother was receiving treatments for cancer and she needed help on the farm and be a caregiver. One must decide the question of mixed law and fact when determining a good cause for delay. The meaning of good cause is a question of law whether the facts in a given case fall inside the definition is a question of fact. The claimant should have been given the benefit of the doubt in regards to the late filling. It is given and common sense that a person in the claimant's position would have numerous things to do within a short span of time. This was a traumatic experience for the claimant and it constitutes a good cause for delay in filing her claim. Appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Charlotte Sayeau
Date: 2001

Cumulative Effects

CUB 56558 Umipre Decision - The claimant states three reasons as to why he did not apply immediately: he did not think he qualified, belief in that he could find a job and the death of his sister. The Board unanimously dismissed the appeal. In the appeal to the Umpire, the claimant made the same arguments. The Umpire found in this case that the Board did not take into consideration the reasons for the delay of the appeal. The Umpire mentioned that the delay was in a short period of time, the stress following the personal crisis in his life, his belief that he was eligible due to him being dismissed the day after his sister passed away and that he applied immediately after he found out that he qualified. The Umpire goes on to state the following:

" I find that the claimant has provided reasons for his delay which taken together should have shown good cause for his delay. Taken into consideration the social aspect of the Employment Insurance Act, the benefit of the doubt should be given to claimants in such situations rather than use the legislation to find a way to prevent the claimant from receiving benefits."

The Board's decision was placed aside and the appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Gerald O'Brien
Date: 2003

CUB 69261 Umpire Decision - The claimant's employment ended on May 12, 2006 but her salary continued until June 15. It was only when her salary stopped that she had an interruption of earnings. She applied on October 4, 2006 for her benefits. She stated the reason for her late application was that she was waiting for her record of employment. Upon assessment by the Commission it was determined that the claimant qualified for only 24 weeks of benefits rather than the 32 weeks she was expecting. When the record of employment was sent to the claimant, she did not open her mail and therefore did not claim her benefits on time. However, during this time, the claimant was going through significant hardship as she was tending to her ill father. The Board of Referees found that the claimant did not show good cause for her delay. The illness was not the only factor resulting in the claimant's delay. There were three factors affecting her delay which were erroneous information the Commission gave her, her anticipation of other employment and her father's illness and death. The Board failed to consider the cumulative effect of the reason given by the claimant and this effect constitutes a good cause for her delay. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Claimant
Date: 2007

Delayed Reporting

CUB 55057 Umipre Decision - The claimant is appealing the decision as to whether or not he had good cause to justify the delay in completing and submitting his reporting cards, pursuant to s. 10 of the Act. The Board found that the claimant had not shown good cause for his delay. Although the claimant had personal problems he still had opportunity to contact the Commission. The claimant did not submit his Teledec reports in accordance with s.10 & of the Act and s. 26 of the Regulations. After being told to report, on a few occasions the claimant called the Commission using the Teledec but did not remain on the line long enough to give a reply, this was considered a non-filing. The Commission admits that the claimant was issued a reporting card for two weeks commencing July 30 and August 12, 2000. There is evidence that shows the claimant called on two separate occasions but he hung up before the report was completed. The Federal Court of Canada in Caverly ( A-211-01)   Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal, makes several comments in relation to the Teledec system. While these comments where made in relation to making false and misleading statements, the Court alluded to the difficulty of overcoming an onus where there is no proof of any explanation as to how the Teledec system works. In short, a failure on the part of the Commission to give adequate instructions as to the use of the system. The Board did not take into account the attempt that the claimant made at using the Teledec system. The appeal is allowed.
Appellant: Brian Bartraw
Date: 2002

CUB 65005 Umipre Decision -Upon her loss of employment, the claimant received vacation and severance pay totaling $2046. On May 25 the Commission informed her of the allocation of that amount to the weeks between April 11 and May 7. The Commission sent the claimant an access code and instructions for making her bi-weekly reports electronically by either the Internet or telephone. The claimant admitted to not fully reading those instructions and she said she did not realize she could make her reports electronically. She did not attempt to make an electronic report until June 24. The system " screened out" her attempt because more than three weeks had elapsed from the weeks for which she was attempting to report. The same day she contacted the Commission and requested to have her claim antedated to April 17. The Commission denied her antedate. Informing her that her renewal claim for employment cannot start earlier than June 12, 2005. The Commission did not err in denying the requested antedate with respect to the weeks of April 17 and 24. It did however err in ruling that the claimant's benefits could not start earlier than June 12, 2005. The appeal was allowed in part.
Appellant: Mary Koletsas
Date:2005

CUB- 76147 Umipre Decision - The claimant established an initial claim effective January 4, 2009 and he made his reports until March 22. When the claimant attempted on April 11 to file his two week report, his attempt failed and he was requested to call the Telephone Reporting Service for assistance. The claimant failed to reply to the request and returned to work April 6. When submitting a claim on June 18, 2009, he requested it be antedated to March 29 but the Commission denied the request. At the appeal, the Board determined that the claimant did not show good cause in the delay for filing his reports. At the Umpire hearing, the claimant submitted that he had submitted the required report for the two week period March 22 to April 4, 2009 by internet. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Claimant
Date: 2010

General Principles- Reasonable Person

CUB 17192 Umipre Decision -The claimant stated that he had gone to the Commission and consulted an employment counsellor about his employment opportunities. The counsellor was aware that the claimant was a recent graduate, looking for employment and in financial need but she didn't suggest that he apply for benefits. The claimant states that there must a duty of care on the part of the counsellor to assist a claimant in this respect. The claimant contends that he made a reasonable attempt to obtain information by visiting the E.I. office. The Umpire in this case is quoted as saying:

" First, the principle of antedating. Unemployment insurance is a social programme designed to benefit people who are disadvantaged in their desire to work. Nothing is to be gained by denying benefits to people who would otherwise be entitled on the mere technical grounds that they have not filed at the right time. It is with that reason in mind that Parliament has enacted the antedating provisions.....Fortunately, we now take a more enlightened view as expressed by the A.G. Canada v Albrecht, [1985] 1 F.C. 710   Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal,F.C.A. Now, if a claimant has other valid reasons which may happen to include ignorance of his entitlements to benefits, he will still enjoy the benefit of the antedating provisions so long as he can demonstrate that he acted in a reasonable manner to satisfy himself as to his rights and obligations under the Act."

The claimant's credibility is not at issue here, it is accepted that as soon as he finished his legal studies he searched for employment. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: John Bouchard
Date: 1989

CUB 42404A Umipre Decision - The evidence reveals that the appellant was employed by United Cooperatives of Ontario from July 15, 1991 to October 7, 1994. However, he did not file an application for benefits until May 24, 1995, some seven months later, even though he received his record of employment from his employer in December 1994. In this case, unlike that in the Albrecht case, there is no evidence that the appellant was told by his employer that he could not apply for benefits until he had exhausted his severance pay. It is clear from his application that he was led by his employer to reasonably believe that there was a good possibility of employment and that there would be no problem in delaying the application. He was undoubtedly inexperienced with the unemployment insurance system and relied upon his employer for advice. Such inexperience has been held sufficient to constitute good cause: CUBs 17601 Umipre Decision, 16333 Umipre Decision, 14813 Umipre Decision, 14326 Umipre Decision, 14318 Umipre Decision. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Richard Graham
Date: 1999

CUB 46663 Umipre Decision -The claimant stated that she hadn't received her ROE from her past employer until she was told by the Commission that she had to have one. Although the claimant hadn't received her ROE in good time she felt that she couldn't apply for benefits for 18 months, because the lump settlement she had received was equivalent to 18 months of salary. In this case Justice Mullen quotes the Waldemar Albrecht Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal decision, in that case it states:

" In my view, when a Claimant has failed to file his claim in a timely way and his ignorance of the law is ultimately the reason for his failure, he ought to be able to satisfy the requirement of having " good cause" , when he is able to show that he did what a reasonable person in his situation would have done to satisfy himself as to his rights and obligations under the Act. This means that each case must be judged on its own facts and to this extent no clear and easily applicable principle exists; a partially subjective appreciation of the circumstances is involved which excludes the possibility of any exclusively objective test. I think, however, that this what Parliament had in mind and, in my opinion, this is what justice requires."

It is assumed that a reasonable person would assume that the application for benefits should be made when the benefits are available to the claimant, and in this case, a year and a half before the benefits are available. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Sharon Macfarlane
Date: 1999

CUB 47897 Umipre Decision - The appellant moved from Canada to the United States...He moved to the Washington DC area, following his wife who had a new job in that area. He expected that it would be relatively easy getting work, but was surprised to discover that this was not the case. Most of the work in his field in the DC area is in the defense industry, and he encountered difficulty because he is not a US citizen. The appellant presented himself at the office of the Virginia Employment Commission, hoping that he might be eligible for unemployment benefits. He was told he was not eligible because he had never worked in Virginia...he was later informed by an employee there that while he was not eligible for UI benefits in Virginia, he was likely covered under the Canadian unemployment insurance program. The appellant did make reasonable efforts to find out about his eligibility and his benefits should therefore be back dated. Appeal allowed in part.
Appellant: Robert Castell
Date: 2000

CUB 56969 Umipre Decision - The claimant stated two reasons why he delayed in applying for benefits: he had to wait for his Record of Employment and he believed his unemployment would be of a short duration. The claimant got suspended and expected to be reinstated after the arbitration process which too longer than he thought it would. He was reinstated on November 5, 2001. The Umpire agreed that the claimant's delay was not very long, roughly two months. The Umpire goes on to state:

" The claimant delayed not out of ignorance of the law but out of conviction that his situation would be quickly resolved and that he would not be unemployed and would therefore not have to apply for benefits. In this case, from all evidence, I am satisfied the claimant acted as a prudent person, he grieved his wrongful dismissal, was convinced that he be reinstated and was right in his conviction. The process took a bit longer than he had expected. He applied a few weeks later than he would have been expected to. To prevent him receiving benefits would be to impose a very restrictive approach to the interpretation of reasonableness."

The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Rodney Vuksan
Date: 2003

CUB 57916 Umipre Decision - The facts in this case that were brought forth by the claimant include that she was in a midst of a move between provinces because her husband was ordered by his employer to move on two weeks notice. She also had to get her house in Alberta ready to sell and that throughout, she was pregnant and having a rough pregnancy that left her ill and exhausted. These were the reasons that the claimant did not bring forth her claim until October, but it should have been brought forth in June. Although the legislation does not define " good cause" , an interpretation of the concept can be found in the Federal Court Appeal of Albrecht ( A-172-85)   Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal, in the present case, the Board referred to the requirements outlined in Albrecht. The requirements of the Act state that the claimant must act as any other reasonable person would have in the same circumstances, in this case, the Board felt that the claimant had acted as any reasonable person would do and had just cause in applying late. The law that was applied by the Board was correct and the conduct that was brought forth by the claimant was reasonable. The appeal of the Commission was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2003

CUB 57950 Umipre Decision - The Board majority felt that the claimant had failed to provide sufficient evidence for his delay in making his claim. The claimant stated that he called his local HRDC office and was advised that he was not eligible for benefits, he stated that while he was at the office he saw a sign that stated that he could apply for benefits a year later, which is what he ended up doing. The majority showed that the claimant did not show just cause for delaying his appeal, they stated, " because ignorance of the Act should not cause the claimant to delay in filing his claim within the time as described in the Act." They also felt that the claimant failed to use all the available information that was available to him at the time he first originally applied for the claim. If the claimant's version had been accepted by the majority, there would be no question that the claimant had done everything that he felt he had to do. Although, this was not the issue that was before the Board, the issue is whether or not the claimant acted as a reasonable and prudent person would in accepting the information from the agent. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Angelo Prodanos
Date: 2003

CUB 58257 Umipre Decision - On February 8, 2002, the claimant applied to have her claim antedated to August 12, 2001, although the Commission refused the request because they felt that the claimant had not shown good cause for her delay. The claimant said that the main reason she had a delay was because she was waiting for her ROE from her employer to confirm the number of insurable hours. The claimant terminated her employment on August 14, 2001 but her ROE is dated October 30, 2001. In her application for an antedate the claimant mentioned that she was waiting for her ROE, when the ROE did arrive she saw that she had over 500 hours and she felt that she had enough hours for benefits so she applied. The claimant's application is dated November 8, 2001, this is just a little over a week after she received the ROE. She also stated that it took awhile to receive her ROE because she was busy in the relocation of her family. In this case, the claimant requested her ROE to confirm her insurable hours and as soon as she received her ROE she applied. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Charlene Penner
Date: 2003

CUB 58434 Umipre Decision - At first glance, one can see that the claimant's late filing of the claim was because of her ignorance of the law, this is a cause that it is not normally held to be just when it comes to late filing, but in this case there are other factors that need to be considered. In the summer of 2001, the claimant had made an initial claim, she was also aware that in December she would be unemployed for a short time. The claimant had been told by the Commission that she would not have to re-apply again in December, but rather she could re-new her claim over the phone. When she attempted to re-new her claim in December she was told that she could not do it over the phone and that she would have to come down and do it in person. What the claimant was not told, was that the law had changed between her first application and her renewal. What she had to do, in regards to the change, was not a renewal but rather application for a new claim. The claimant was aware at the time of renewal that she would be employed after the Christmas break, so she decided to wait until February to renew both claims at the same time, due to the time consuming process. The Board felt the claimant had acted as any reasonable person would have done in the same situation and allowed her claim to be antedated. This was done due to the fact of the change in the legislation between the two claims. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2003

CUB 59980 Umipre Decision - The claimant established a renewal claim for benefits effective September 9, 2002. He requested to have his claim antedated to March 11, 2002. The claimant's reason for not renewing his claim after his appeal from an earlier Commission decision was that he had called the Commission on several occasions and was not able to receive any information. During the period from March to September 2002, the claimant was also under the stress and bereavement following the death of his wife in March. The minority member of the Board noted in his reasons that the claimant's doctor had confirmed that the claimant suffered from bereavement from the period of March to September 2002 and that during that time the claimant called the Commission. The claimant had provided the numbers that he had called and he also pointed out that the Commission had not sent out any reporting cards following the Board's decision allowing the claimant's appeal in March 2002. Umpire Goulard agreed with the Board's minority member that the Commission had not been any help to the claimant and his file. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Julio Spatzner
Date: 2004

CUB 62630 Umipre Decision -The Board stated that the letter used the words "Once you are eligible for benefits you will have a two week waiting period during which no benefits can be paid to you. If you have new or additional information which could change this decision", she was to provide it. The claimant who had poor English did not fully understand the letter and assumed she was not eligible for benefits at that time. It was not until September of 2003 when talking to Social Services that she was informed that she was eligible for benefits and should have received a telephone access code in order to proceed with her claim. She then sought to have her claim antedated to December 1, 2002. The Board was of the opinion that the claimant had shown good cause for her delay, and they then quoted Albrecht ( A-172-85)   Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal. She must show that she acted as any reasonable person would have, and the Board felt that she had. The Commission appealed this decision because they felt that the claimant had not shown good cause. It is Umpire Riche's view that the wording in the letter sent out by the Commission needs to be clearer, as the way it stands now, it is misleading. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2004

CUB 65458 Umipre Decision -He went to the Employment Insurance office to file a claim, and given he has certain amount of education, he acknowledged that his claim was relatively weak. It is important to note the claimant had already informed the Commission that he was going to file a claim, but he had not yet filed it. The claimant was unsuccessful accessing the site on the specific day that is indicated. In the meantime he continued to look for work, maintained contact with a recruiter and took other steps, such as working on his resume, answering job postings and registering on Web sites. The Board found that the claimant acted in good faith. This is unfortunately not a question of good faith or bad faith; the Board should have asked whether the claimant acted as a reasonable person. In the Umpires opinion the case law favours the claimant. The claimant acted as a reasonable person would have; the Commission did not succeed in discharging its burden of proof. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2006

CUB 65899 Umipre Decision - Once the claimant's claim was established, she did not make any bi-weekly reports either by submitting the traditional report cards or by using Teledec system. She said she did not receive either the information or a supply of report cards. She had used cards when on previous claims and assumed the Commission would send them to her. She returned to work in September and did not pursue her claim until December during the Christmas break. She then completed cards for the summer weeks for which she had qualified. Her failure to make inquiries during the summer was not unreasonable and her hours of work from September and December prevented her from attending at a Commission office. The claimant had a good cause for delay throughout the relevant periods. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Albina Backman
Date: 2006

CUB 67043 Umipre Decision - The claimant worked for Cogeco Cable Canada Inc. and when this employment was terminated, she received $13,682.25 severance pay. She also worked for the Commission scolaire de l'Estuaire when she was laid off because of a work shortage. In her application the claimant indicated she had delayed filing her claim for benefits because she had received severance pay and thought that she had to wait until the funds received were exhausted before she could be entitled to Employment Insurance benefits. She had also been self employed hence while seeking for alternate employment, she knew she was not entitled to benefits. In her appeal she said that she was not pleading ignorance. The Board arrived at the conclusion that the claimant had acted as a reasonable person would have done and allowed her antedate. The Umpire found that the Board's decision was well founded. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2006

CUB 67658 Umipre Decision / A-132-07 - The claimant, a teacher filed an application for unemployment benefits. On August 25, 2005 the Commission informed the claimant by letter that she would not be paid benefits from July 4, 2005 to September 2, 2005 because she was unable to prove her availability for work as she indicated she would only accept employment as a teacher. Subsequent to September 2, 2005, the claimant renewed her efforts, without success to find a position in the teaching profession and she assumed that because she continued to limit her search for employment to that of a teacher she remained disentitled to benefits. In December the claimant contacted the Commission and she was informed that she had been eligible for benefits since September 2, 2005. She filled a renewal application and a request to have her claim antedated. This request was denied by the Commission. The Board of Referees made a finding that it was reasonable for the claimant to believe she was not eligible for benefits and determined she had a good cause for delay in her renewal claim and allowed her appeal. The Commission contended that the claimant did not exercise the invitation extended in the notice to contact the Commission for additional information. The Umpire found that the claimant's delay could not be attributed to indifference or lack of concern. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2007

CUB 71047 Umipre Decision - During the period between the time the claimant was laid off and filing for benefits, the claimant was in contact with the employer and was under the impression that the rig he was drilling on would not be shut down for long. Therefore, the claimant was given the impression by the employer that he would not need benefits. As well, the claimant was computer illiterate and did not know that he had only four weeks to file. Due to the circumstances and the short duration of the delay, only two months, the Umpire found that the claimant had acted as a reasonable person as he sought help in applying for benefits on the computer and was under the impression he would go back to work soon. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Claimant
Date: 2008

CUB 71534 Umipre Decision -After losing his employment, the claimant moved to join his spouse and had applied for several jobs. The claimant did not think that he would have difficulties obtaining a position, but called the Commission anyways to find out information about the EI program. He was then told by the Commission that he would have to wait six weeks to apply. After taking four weeks to move, he found a job as a car salesman. Unfortunately the claimant did not earn much at that position, and decided to call EI again and was told that his claim would be antedated without a problem. The Board found that he had acted as a reasonable person would under the circumstances because he was unaware of the EI program and contacted the Commission immediately to find out information. As well, the Board found that the claimant cannot be blamed for getting misinformation from the Commission. The Commission submits that the claimant is not believable in his representations, and that more weight should be given to the claimant's initial claims that he thought he would find employment and was working part-time. The Umpire found that the claimant did act as a reasonable person and the Board did not err in law. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2008

CUB 76922 Umipre Decision -The claimant filed the claim for benefits Oct 19, 2009. His last day of work was April 17, 2009. He said he did not file as he was on contract work and was expecting to return to work in September as he had in previous years. The commission concluded that he did not show good cause in the delay and was negligent in submitted in a timely manner. When his contract was cancelled he filed. The Board found that the claimant’s delays were reasonable. The appeal was dismissed
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2011

CUB 77178 Umipre Decision -The claimant was delayed in filing his while he was dealing with a workers compensation claim. He was on light duty when he left for holidays in the summer of 2010. Upon return to work he was told his position was abolished and to re-open his claim with WSIB. He delayed application while he dealt with his claim with Compensation and the employer was also late issuing his ROE. The Board determined he had good cause for late filing. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2010

Good Cause

CUB 35066 Umipre Decision -The claimant was employed as a caterer when she was unable to continue working because of a back injury. The Worker's Compensation Board was slow in processing her claim. The claimant was advised by her union representative to seek Unemployment Insurance. Prior to this she was under the false impression from the WCB that she need not seek benefits elsewhere. The Commission allowed her a benefit period starting April 2, 1995. The claimant appealed the decision and the Umpire allowed the antedate to June 25, 1994. The Umpire stated that " good cause for delay is not a rigidly closed concept, but rather more flexible and circumstantial... being so each case turning on its own individual circumstances" . The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Erin M. Rettie
Date: 1996

CUB 42827 Umipre Decision -The claimant wrote to the Commission as follows:

" I would like to appeal the decision to start my EI claim on Sept. 28, 1997. I think the claim should begin when I became unemployed June 29, 1997. I did not realize I should file my claim immediately after becoming employed...My attitude with respect to EI is that it should be used as a last resort and that is why I did not report my lay off right away. At the time I preferred to look for work without claiming EI...I have been actively looking for work during the periods in question and I wish to retroactively receive EI benefits for these periods in question."

In this appeal, there is no mischief to be looked at. The claimant had a perfectly legitimate claim. This Umpire has written on more than one occasion that employers should be required to notify employees who are eligible for benefits that they should apply right away. In this case, the employee applied shortly after he received his ROE with the admonition to file immediately contained thereon. The appeal was allowed in part as set out above.
Appellant: Eric McGaw
Date: 1998

CUB 43320 Umipre Decision - When the claimant was told there would be no work for a couple of weeks. After two months he told them that if they don't have a job for him then they should give me my vacation pay and ROE. Three weeks later they sent me my ROE in the mail. The cause of the delay, rather than the duration, forms the focus of the good cause inquiry, once good cause has been established for the period, it matters not how long that period may be: good cause does not rust ( CUB 12995A)   Umipre Decision.Entitlements to benefits begins after the initial claim is filed. Sure enough if he had known that the Act and regulations imposed an obligation to apply earlier in order to get benefits backdated, he would have applied earlier, but he did not know the provisions of the Act and regulations, as the referees accurately found in erroneously scolding the claimant for having no excuse. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Leonard Chan
Date: 1998

CUB 46079 Umipre Decision - The claimant, who was laid off, collected severance pay equal to 16 months of salary. He filed an initial claim with the Commission and mentioned to the officer that he was thinking of starting up a business. She reportedly told him that " she would get an investigator after him" . He therefore withdrew his claim. He filed a second claim once his 16 months of severance pay was completed. To explain the 16 month delay, he wrote that he believed he had to wait until his severance pay was up before he filed a claim. The Umpire felt that the claimant in this case acted in good faith and conducted himself as a reasonable person would have by relying on instructions from his employer. See CUBs 36384A Umipre Decision and 40657 Umipre Decision. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Gilbert Deguire
Date: 1999

CUB 46268A Umipre Decision - In the opinion of the Commission the claimant did not have good cause for applying late for benefits. In CUB 37589 Umipre Decision Rouleau J. states: " A claimant who has taken all reasonable steps to apprise himself of his eligibility, will be seen to have established " good cause" for delay, where his failure to apply for benefits sooner is the direct result of erroneous information from the Commission. The Board is an independent tribunal; it is not an arm of the Commission; it does not make rulings on its behalf and should avoid coming to a premature conclusion or taking sides on issues. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Douglas Kego
Date: 2000

CUB 47897 Umipre Decision - The appellant moved from Canada to the United States...He moved to the Washington DC area, following his wife who had a new job in that area. He expected that it would be relatively easy getting work, but was surprised to discover that this was not the case. Most of the work in his field in the DC area is in the defense industry, and he encountered difficulty because he is not a US citizen. The appellant presented himself at the office of the Virginia Employment Commission, hoping that he might be eligible for unemployment benefits. He was told he was not eligible because he had never worked in Virginia...he was later informed by an employee there that while he was not eligible for UI benefits in Virginia, he was likely covered under the Canadian unemployment insurance program. The appellant did make reasonable efforts to find out about his eligibility and his benefits should therefore be backdated. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Robert Castell
Date: 2000

CUB 54242 Umipre Decision -The claimant had worked for Loblaws from June 15, 1980 until September 2, 2000. The claimant's father had picked up an application form in October but didn't apply for benefits until December. Mr. Richardson requested that his claim be antedated until September 2, 2000, he stated that he couldn't apply sooner due to illness. The claimant had two reasons for delaying his claim, his illness and his belief, based on information from the Commission, that he needed his ROE to make his claim for benefits. The Umpire stated that the belief of needing an ROE was good cause for delay and was accepted in a number of previous decisions. The Umpire also quotes two CUBs (CUB 16667 Umipre Decision and CUB 16275 Umipre Decision) that mention the case of Albrecht [1985] 1 F.C. 710   Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal. The Umpire in this case also states that in CUB 13249 Umipre Decision, Justice Rouleau accepts that any misinformation that the claimant received from the Commission in regards to waiting for his ROE is a good cause for delay. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Wayne Richardson
Date: 2002

CUB 54294 Umipre Decision - Mr. Adams was employed by the Canadian Forces and retired on May 31, 1996. After he retired he inquired at the Commission office as to whether or not he was able to receive benefits, he was not told that he wasn't eligible because he would be receiving a pension from the Forces. He was also told that if he re-entered the workforce he may be able to receive benefits. After a conversation with a relative in November 2001 he learned that he was probably able to receive benefits. The test is to make sure that the claimant did what any reasonable or prudent person would do to determine his rights. In this case the claimant did everything that was required of him. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Arnold Adams
Date: 2002

CUB 54334 Umipre Decision - The claimant worked for Nav Canada from November 11, 1996 to July 7, 1999. On February 20, 2001 the claimant applied for benefits and asked that her claim be antedated to July 7, 1999. The claimant pointed out two reasons as to why she had a delay in applying, the first being that she received advice from her employer that she wouldn't qualify for benefits for a year because of the severance package that she received and the second being that her health was bad during the period in question. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Lori Halverson
Date: 2002

CUB 57123 Umipre Decision - The Board of Referees unanimously allowed, stating that the claimant acted" reasonably and prudently, based on his experience and the circumstances" . The Umpire agreed with this statement and decided that there was no reason for intervention in this case. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2003

CUB 57182 Umipre Decision - The claimant could not get a Record of Employment because his employer had passed away and the Commission would not let him write his own nor did they tell the claimant where he could go to get one. The Board relied on the Commissions testimony more so than the claimant's and used inside information from the Commission to make their decision. The Umpire in turn looked at this evidence and decided that the Board of Referees erred in law in relying on evidence that was received from other than witnesses or something on the record. The Umpire goes on to state that the Board should have accepted the credibility of the claimant and not information obtained by the Commission. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: John Kerr
Date: 2003

CUB 57222 Umipre Decision - The Board of Referees felt that the claimant had good cause in delaying to apply for benefits due to the fact that four of her family members were being detained in China, one being her husband. The claimant had to fly out of Canada and into Geneva to try to help the members of her family. When the claimant got back to Canada she did not have that much money therefore she decided to appeal for benefits. The Umpire supports the decision of the Board and goes on to state:

" It is well established in the jurisprudence that the test to determine what constitutes good cause for a delay in applying for benefits is whether the claimant acted as a reasonable person would have in the same situation and that each case must be determined on its own facts taking into consideration the special circumstances of each case."

The Umpire felt that the claimant was credible and had important personal reasons for waiting to claim for benefits. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2003

CUB 58234 Umipre Decision -The claimant was employed by the White River First Nation from April 11, 2000 until November 1, 2001. On January 15, 2002 the claimant applied for benefits indicating that he lost his employment due to a shortage of work. His claim was established for January 13, 2002, the claimant then asked the Commission to antedate his claim to November 2, 2001. The claimant stated that the reason he did not apply for benefits right after he was layed off is because he was expected to be recalled. The claimant did not want to start a claim, because he was expecting to go back to work shortly. The test for showing good reasons for a delay in applying for benefits, as established by the Federal Court of Appeal, is that a claimant must show he acted as a reasonable person would have done in similar circumstances; (Larouche ( A-644-93)   Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal, Albrecht ( A-172-85))   Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal. The Umpire in this case felt that the Board did not err in law and that the claimant had shown good cause for his delay in applying for benefits. The appeal was denied.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2003

CUB 59041 Umipre Decision -The claimant indicated that his delay for applying was due to the fact that he was not aware that he could establish a claim but later found out that some of his co-workers had established claims and he therefore applied. The Commission determined that the claimant had not shown good cause in delay of five years. The reason that the claimant gave for not applying earlier was described in Exhibit 4.2. This states:

" It was at this point in time that I applied for Employment Insurance Benefits and was denied. I was told that the money I was receiving from my Algoma Steel pension would cancel out any money I might receive from Employment Insurance Benefits. I made several phone calls to Elliot Lake Employment Insurance office and was told each time that my pension benefits were too large of an amount for me to receive any benefits. I finally accepted their logic and did not pursue this matter any further."

In this case, the claimant had attempted to file a claim and the Commission refused to let him do so. It cannot be said that he did not act as a reasonable person would have in the same circumstances, but in actuality, the claimant had taken all the reasonable steps to file his claim and inform himself of his rights. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: John Becanic
Date: 2003

CUB 59372 Umipre Decision -The claimant stopped working on January 5,2002 due to pregnancy complications and she did not apply for benefits until June 7,2002. When the claimant applied for maternity and parental benefits in June, the Commission informed her that her application was approved, effective June 2nd, and that the parental benefits would be paid after the maternity benefits, and that they would be paid for 35 weeks. In the Board decision dismissing the appeal, the Board stated:

" The Board notes that legislation took effect on March 3, 2002, to extend the benefits period to the maximum special benefits limit from 50 to 65 weeks. The claimant based her decision not to file at the earlier date because of legislation as it existed at the time. She said she filed when she was told to file by HRDC, and she was off work when the law came into effect. She understands the legislation which came into effect on March 3rd and asked if the Commission could antedate her claim to March 3rd, which she requests in Exhibit 9. The Board requests the Commission re-examine Exhibit 9 to determine if the claimant can receive extended benefits."

In this case, the claimant did what any reasonable and prudent person would do, and when she found out that the law had changed she promptly sought to take advantage of it. The Board did not make any findings as to whether or not the claimant had good cause for delaying her claim, this was an error of law. The appeal was allowed and the claim was antedated back to March 3, 2002.
Appellant: Laura Cormaggi
Date: 2003

CUB 59377 Umipre Decision - The Commission rejected the antedate application because they ruled that the claimant had not shown good cause for the delay in filing, the delay being May 15th to September 28, 2002. To achieve success on the application, the claimant besides showing good cause, must also show that he is qualified for benefits on the earlier date. Even though the claimant was not paid after April 27th, he believed that he was still employed because he had not yet received a notice of dismissal. In determining good cause all the surrounding circumstances must be considered. Due to the confusion regarding the claimant's uncertainty about his employment and the confusion it created the claimant had shown just cause for delay in the filing in his claim. The appeal was allowed for issue (1).
Appellant: Karl G. Blass
Date: 2003

CUB 59482 Umipre Decision -In this case what the claimant was found to have done was relying on the reasonable interpretation of the instructions found on the ROE. At the bottom of page 1 on the ROE, it states that, " if you intend to file a claim for Employment Insurance income benefits you should do so immediately." The claimant knew that he would be obtaining a severance package and that he would be unable to receive benefits until that package had been allocated and exhausted. On the back of the ROE, the printing had more to say about his entitlement to benefits. It stated:

" If you are not applying for benefits now, keep this and all other Records of Employment in a safe place for 2 years after the latest date recorded in block 11 of Copy 1. (that is the last date of the claimant's employment for the company for which he worked.)"

The Board found that the claimant's interpretation of the two sections of the ROE was reasonable. He felt that the interpretation of the back of the ROE meant that he had up to two years to apply for benefits and, when read with the wording on the front, he felt that there would be no negative sanction if he did not apply immediately. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2003

CUB 60548 Umipre Decision -The claimant was employed by Sid's Construction Ltd from May 22 to July 12, 2002. Mr. Ward finally applied for benefits on November 6, 2002, but was told by the Commission that he did not have the required minimum number of hours of insurable benefits in his qualifying period for his claim. On December 7, 2002 he asked to have his claim antedated to the last day of his employment. He indicated that he hadn't been aware that he had been laid off and that he was just informed of this. The facts of this case include that the claimant was working for his employer on a on-call basis and would wait to be called before he reported for work. When the claimant realized that he had not been called for work in awhile he called his employer, it was then that he was told that he had been laid off. He then requested his ROE, which was issued October 16, 2002, and then applied for benefits within 30 days of receiving it. He once again mentioned that he did not apply earlier because he did not realize that he was laid-off. The Board felt that by the claimant applying within 30 days of receiving his ROE, had shown good cause for his delay. It has been held in CUBs 13000A Umipre Decision, 15236A Umipre Decision and 24908 Umipre Decision that a belief that one is still employed or confusion as to one's employment status can constitute a good cause for delaying an application for benefits. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2004

CUB 60830 Umipre Decision -The claimant had established a claim effective November 24, 2002. On December 10, 2002 the claimant received written explanations for reporting his first two weeks, November 24 to December 27, 2002, by Teledec. The claimant stated that he did not realize that the weekly recording had changed to telephone procedure, as he had never dealt with the new procedure. In the appeal before the Umpire, the claimant's counsel said that at the start of the claimant's lay-off the C.A.W. representatives attended the Ford plant and informed the workers, including the claimant, to bring their cards to their union for assistance in completing them. The claimant relied on this information and awaited the arrival of his cards, but because of the C.A.W. instructions he failed to read or he misunderstood the Teledec instructions. He thought that the Teledec was an alternative to the paper cards, it was only after he returned to work, and he spoke to his co-workers, did he realize that the Teledec was mandatory. The Board acted without regard for the evidence before it, namely the C.A.W. instructions which he relied on. The appeal was allowed. See CUB 11100 Umipre Decision and CUB 10996 Umipre Decision.
Appellant: Dean Langille
Date: 2004

CUB 62370 Umipre Decision -The claimant had retired from her employment on January 2, 2003 and she applied for benefits six months after her retirement, and at the same time she filed a request dated June 24, 2003 and asked to have her claim antedated to January 2, 2003. An initial claim was made effective June 15, 2003. In the claimant's request for antedate she gave reasons for her delay, these reasons are include the mandatory retirement from Toronto Western Hospital at 65 years old, the problem that Human Resources failed to mail out her ROE, the fact that she had worked since she was 18 years old and had always paid into EI but has never collected it. She also stated that her son, who lived with her, is X* and suffered a serious seizure in January and was hospitalized for two weeks, and that she had to care for him until he recovered. She also stated that she had no knowledge that she was available for benefits until a friend informed her of rights. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2004
* Protected information in accordance with Part 4 of the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act.

CUB 65144 Umipre Decision -The claimant worked as an electrician helper form January 5, 2004 to June 4, 2004 and had accumulated 691 hours of insurable employment during this period. It is clear the claimant had previously filed a claim and that he had received benefits. This benefit claim ended toward the end of December 2004. He filed a claim for benefits on February 14, 2005. The Commission determined that the claimant had accumulated only 505 hours of insurable employment during his qualifying period, which began on February 16, 2004 and ended on February 12, 2005, whereas he needed 665 hours to qualify. The claimant requested that his claim be antedated to December 19, 2004 because he believed that his last claim was still in effect and he had acted to inquire to the Commission regarding an increase in his benefit level. The Board of Referees determined that the reasons given by the claimant for the delay in filing his benefit claim constituted good cause for the entire duration of the delay. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2006

CUB 65711 Umipre Decision -The reason given by the claimant for her delay was that she believed she needed her record of employment to apply and was waiting for this document. She had not enquired from the Commission in regard to her rights and obligations concerning to her claim. The Commission submitted that the claimant had not met the test established in the jurisprudence as to what constitutes good cause for a delay in applying for benefits. Good faith and ignorance of the law do not constitute good cause pursuant to subsection 10(4) of the Employment Insurance Act. The claimant actively pursued her efforts to obtain the document she believed she required to file her claim. When told that she should apply without her record of employments, she immediately did so. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2006

CUB 71047 Umipre Decision -In order to establish good cause for a delay in applying for benefits, a claimant must demonstrate that they did what a reasonable person would have done under the circumstances. The claimant had been in contact with his former employer, and was assured that he would be returning to work right away. However, there was no work available for the claimant. As well, the claimant was computer illiterate and it took some time for the claimant to find someone to help. The period of delay was only a short duration. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Claimant
Date: 2008

CUB 72513/A-291-09 - The claimant was denied benefits because the Commission found that he did not have good cause for delay in submitting bi-weekly reports for the weeks in question. The claimant was a new comer to Canada and had some language barriers as well as there was a question as to whether he was provided all the information he required from the Commission. He also had problems with the Tele-dec reporting system. The Board found that he had acted as a reasonable person would in the same circumstances and allowed the appeal.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2009

CUB 75313 Umipre Decision - The claimant went to the Commission office and showed her Record of Employm¬ent from her last employer. The Commission employee informed the claimant that the number of hours work-ed for the last employer would not allow her to receive benefits. On the contrary, the claim¬ant would have been entitled to benefits after December 2006. The claimant spoke with another representative in Janu¬ary 2010 and was advised that she probably would have qualified for benefits. The claimant then filed a claim for benefits with the Commission and requested that claim to be antedated to December 17, 2006. The Board found that under these circumstances, the Comm¬ission erred in denying the request. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2010

CUB 75630 Umipre Decision - The Commission appealed the Board’s decision allowing the claimant’s appeal from its decision refusing to antedate a claim for benefits from June 28, 2009 to June 14, 2009. The claimant emphasized that be had very little education and did not read or write. He always relied on other to file his claims and the Board had accepted that the claimant’s reasons for requesting an antedate constituted good cause. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2010

CUB 75829 Umipre Decision - The claimant filed a benefit renewal claim which was established as of November 16, 2009. The claimant requested his claim be antedated to September 4, 2009. The Commission refused to antedate his claim on the grounds that the claimant failed to show good cause for the delay in filing his claim for benefits. The claimant appealed the Commissions decision to a Board of Referees, which allowed his appeal because he delayed applying because he was waiting to be called back after a lay-off. He was also unaware he only had four weeks to file a renewal claim and believed he could request that his claim be antedated. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2010

CUB 75982 Umipre Decision - The claimant had a benefit period established effective January 21, 2010, which became effective on December 27, 2009. She held numerous jobs, one of which was at Costco. The claimant sought information from her former employer Costco and twice from Employment Insurance, and at both places was told that her chances for eligibility were not good because she had voluntarily left her employment. The claimant waited until she was at a more stable place, as she was suffering from depression, to again ask the Commission about her rights. The Commiss¬ion officer suggested she file a request to antedate her claim. The Board allowed the claimant’s appeal as she acted as a reasonable person would have done in similar circumstances. The Umpire found that the decision of the Board was consistent with the legislation and the case law. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2010

Health Reasons

CUB 26809 Umipre Decision -Claimant had been an auditor for Revenue Canada from March 30, 1987 to June 14, 1991. He was given personal needs leave without pay from September 3, 1991 to December 1, 1991 having been on paid vacation leave from June 18 to August 30, 1991. He filed for a claim for parental benefits on July 22, 1992 and asked to have it antedated back to June 14, 1991. His reasons for delay were ignorance of the law, out of the country and a serious illness. It was found that he acted as a reasonable person might have under his particular circumstances may constitute good cause. (Also see CUB 22374 Umipre Decision)
Appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Rafig Rokerya
Date: 1994

CUB 35066 Umipre Decision - Improper antedate date - The board of referees antedated the claim for benefits to March 1, 1995 - the day she was available for work. The Umpire found that the board should have antedated the claim to June 25, 1994 - the day she was unable to work due to her injury. The claimants application for antedate was allowed.
Appellant: Erin M. Rettie
Date: 1995

CUB 54242 Umipre Decision - The Commission states that if he was well enough to pick up an application in October then there is no reason to antedate his claim back to September. The claimant stated that he wasn't well enough to pick it up so his father went down and did that for him. He was told at that time to bring his application in when he had his ROE. The claimant was still ill and went back to work in November, against doctor's advice. In CUB 16667 Umipre Decision, Justice Reed stated that in an application for sickness benefits, the test for good cause should take into consideration the claimant's illness along with other factors. She wrote:

" In addition I share my colleague's view that timeliness is not as crucial to a sickness benefit claim as it is in the case of a claim for regular benefits. There is no requirement on the claimant to prove availability and thus there is not the same period of prejudice, to the Commission, to arise as is the case with a claim for regular benefits.

The test set out in the Albrecht case is a flexible one. It requires an assessment of a variety of circumstances which may differ in each case: the length of delay; whether any prejudice is occasioned to the administration of the unemployment insurance system by the delay; the sophistication of the claimant; the degree of experience a claimant has with the unemployment insurance system; the type of benefits being claimed (regular or sickness); the immediate cause of delay (e.g., illness or misinformation). This is not an exhaustive listing."

The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Wayne Richardson
Date: 2002

CUB 64594 Umipre Decision -The Board intervened and found that the delay in applying was justified and that the claimant had good cause for his delay. The Board probably reviewed the exhibit in the appeal docket regarding the claimant's visits to a family practitioner. This exhibit stated that the claimant was treated for major depression. The same exhibit notes that treatment began and that the stress had been detected. The Umpire could not see how the Commission's position could be such that it would not tolerate any period of relaxation or possible recovery for a person who suffers from a bout of depression and who has evidence in support of the depression or who is going through a difficult period and who, out of no negligence on his part, filed his claim late. The Umpire found the Commission interpreted the case law too restrictively. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2005

CUB 64793 Umipre Decision -The reason given by the claimant for her delay in applying for benefits was that she believed she was still employed and therefore could not apply for benefits. She fully expected to return to work and regularly took doctor's reports on her recovery progress, hoping she would be able to resume her employment. As soon as she was informed that her employment had been terminated, she considered herself unemployed and applied for benefits. The Umpire found that this does not constitute a misunderstanding of law and legal rights but of her status which was unclear. She was still employed and hoping to be able to resume her employment. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Patricia Logan
Date: 2005

Ignorance of the Law

CUB 25879 Umipre Decision - Antedate - ignorance of the law coupled with her failure to make inquires of the Commission - Section 9(4) Act . The claimant was employed as a teaching assistant. She failed to file her claim for June 25 until October 12. Her reasons for delay were that she was not aware that she qualified for benefits. In her past history as a full-time teacher, she knew that she did not qualify for benefits in that circumstance. It was found that her reasoning was reasonable and was thus good cause for a delay in filing a claim. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 1994

CUB 52237 Umipre Decision - The claimant, who is a recent immigrant to Canada, was required as a condition for sponsoring his wife's entry in Canada, that he would not apply for social assistance in Canada for 10 years. When he became unemployed he didn't apply for benefits because he was under the impression that he couldn't apply for 10 years. He believed that social assistance included employment insurance benefits. The Umpire is quoted as saying:

" The jurisprudence has well established the principle that an error by a claimant on his understanding of the law and its application can constitute good cause for applying late. The Federal Court of Appeal in the Albrecht ( A-172-85)   Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appealstated that test for good cause is whether the claimant acted as a reasonably prudent person would have in the same circumstances, either to clarify the situation regarding his employment or to determine his rights and obligations."

The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Bruno Pellichero
Date: 2001

Interruption of Earnings

CUB 26158 Umipre Decision / A-706-94 Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal - The claimant did not believe she had sufficient number of insurable weeks to qualify for benefits. The Umpire felt that it was reasonable that a person whose family had never had any experience with unemployment insurance, could be seen as reasonable when they had acted once the mistake had been found. The Umpire said in his comments:

" As my colleague Muldoon J. once put it, the scheme of unemployment insurance should not be presume that one be paranoid about would-be claimants and think that they get up every morning with all the tricks of the Act forever bubbling in their consciousness."

The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 1994

Misinformation from the Commission

CUB 21950 Umipre Decision - The Board of Referees down-played the significance of the information given to the claimant by an employee of the Commission at the time of the initial interview. By determining that the claimant's reliance on the word of one employee of the CEIC represented an oversight or mistaken assumption the board erred in law. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Velta Ulmanis
Date: 1992

CUB 23053 Umipre Decision -It was the claimant's understanding from information that she obtained from the Commission that she had a full year to reapply for benefits. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Thelma J. Babet
Date: 1993

CUB 33900A Umipre Decision - The claimant was receiving a pension and continued to work thus requalifying him for benefits. He was under the impression (due to a change in legislation) that he was ineligible for benefits because of his retirement income. When the claimant realized that he was indeed eligible he applied for benefits and was denied as the Commission found that he did not have just cause for delay in making his claim. The Umpire found that due to the change in law it was reasonable to assume he was ineligible and found that the claimant had just cause for delay in the claim. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Courtney Stoate
Date: 1996

CUB 37589 Umipre Decision - The claimant received erroneous information from a Commission official who advised him that his claim could be antedated at a later date. The umpire found that the claimant acted as a reasonable and prudent person and should not be required to bear the consequences of the Commissions deficient advice. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: David Milne
Date: 1997

CUB 46079 Umipre Decision - The claimant, who was laid off, collected severance pay equal to 16 months of salary. He filed an initial claim with the Commission and mentioned to the officer that he was thinking of starting up a business. She reportedly told him that " she would het an investigator after him" . He therefore withdrew his claim. He filed a second claim once his 16 months of severance pay was completed. To explain the 16 month delay, he wrote that he believed he had to wait until his severance pay was up before he filed a claim. The Umpire felt that the claimant in this case acted in good faith and conducted himself as a reasonable person would have by relying on instructions from his employer. See CUBs 36384A Umipre Decision and 40657 Umipre Decision. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Gilbert Deguire
Date: 1999

CUB 47414 Umipre Decision -The claimant clearly testified to the Board that at or about the time he retired from his employment he went into a CEIC office and inquired as to whether he was entitled to receive unemployment benefits. The Commission employee with whom he spoke asked him if he had quit or been fired. He said he had quit. The Commission employee told him that if he quit he could not receive benefits. When a friend later told him he should apply, he did so. This is not a case where the claimant failed to make inquiries. It is a case where the Commission gave the claimant incorrect information. The Umpire felt that the claimant did what a reasonable person would have done. One who inquires and gets incorrect information cannot be faulted for not pursuing the matter. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Oreste Infusino
Date: 2000

CUB 47897 Umipre Decision - The appellant moved from Canada to the United States. He moved to the Washington DC area, following his wife who had a new job in that area. He expected that it would be relatively easy getting work, but was surprised to discover that this was not the case. Most of the work in his field in the DC area is in the defense industry, and he encountered difficulty because he is not a US citizen. The appellant presented himself at the office of the Virginia Employment Commission, hoping that he might be eligible for unemployment benefits. He was told he was not eligible because he had never worked in Virginia...he was later informed by an employee there that while he was not eligible for UI benefits in Virginia, he was likely covered under the Canadian unemployment insurance program. The appellant did make reasonable efforts to find out about his eligibility and his benefits should therefore be backdated. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Robert Castell
Date: 2000

CUB 55084 Umipre Decision - The claimant says that he received incorrect information from the Entrepreneurship Centre. The majority decision of the Board stated:

" Pursuant to section 10 of the Employment Insurance Act, the request to backdate the claim is denied. The claimant should have consulted the employment insurance office to request advice on how to file a claim for benefits."

The minority member of the Board would have allowed the appeal because he believed that Mr. Godin had good cause for his delay due to misinformation given to him. The Umpire found that the claimant was credible and showed good cause for delay. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Peter Godin
Date: 2002

CUB 62792 Umipre Decision -The Board's decision stated:

" It is unfortunate that the claimant has to be penalized, because the jurisprudence does not consider as a reasonable ground the fact that the claimant has received a wrongful information. Therefore, the antedate cannot be allowed to April 28, 2002".

Past case law shows that any wrong information given by the Commission does not create any right in favour of the claimant, see Granger v Canada ( A-684-85)   Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal. Jurisprudence does not show that wrong information cannot be used to explain the good faith of the claimant in adopting a certain behaviour after receiving bad information. When she discovered she should have filed a claim when she lost her employment, she then filed a claim. It was clear from the decision from the Board, that the claimant would have filed a claim if it were not for the misinformation she received from the agent at the Commission. She trusted the person, who was representing the Commission, who gave her the wrong information, see CUB 11100 Umipre Decision and CUB 52237 Umipre Decision. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Marushka De Sousa
Date: 2005

CUB 63491 Umipre Decision -The claimant explained that he called to check on the status of his claim and was informed by a Commission agent that he was not eligible to benefits because he owned agriculturally zoned property. In his notice of appeal to the Board of Referees, the claimant added he had also been informed several months later that he did not qualify for benefits because of his farming activities. It was only after being advised by his banker, in February 2004, that he should investigate his claim that he did so. He was then informed that he had been eligible to benefits since his claim had been approved. The Board referred to this letter and accepted the claimant's evidence that he had not filed his reports because he had been repeatedly told that he did not qualify The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2005

CUB 64942 Umipre Decision - The claimant stated in her appeal that she had never received her reporting cards but had received a letter advising her that she would be receiving a reporting code but never received this code. Because of this, she had failed to report as she would otherwise have done. She had followed what she had been told to do by the Commission and had simply waited for the information to be provided. The Board reviewed the evidence and concluded that the claimant had not acted as a reasonable person would have because she had not enquired from the Commission. The Board failed to take into consideration the claimant's explanations and the circumstances which caused her failure to report as she should have done. In doing so, the Boarderred in law. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Caroline Jameson
Date: 2005

CUB 69140 Umpire Decision - The claimant was not familiar with computers. Therefore he did not try to process his report using the automated telephone reporting service referred to as teledec or use the internet service. The claimant was waiting to receive his reporting cards. The Commission did not send him report cards. When the claimant made inquiries he was asked to file a new claim. The Umpire found that there was no evidence that the claimant was sent reporting cards to report as required. It appeared that the office in Lindsay requested that the claimant report online. The Umpire found that there is an obligation on the E.I. system to do its utmost to assist claimants so that they can properly report their activities as required when they are on claim. The Umpire found that the fact that the claimant did not receive the report cards and was only asked for his postal code leads to the belief that Service Canada failed to properly assist the claimant in his request for benefits. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Claimant
Date: 2007

CUB 70956 Umpire Decision - The claimant had an ongoing wrongful dismissal suit against her former employer. When the claimant initially applied for benefits, she was told by an agent of the Commission that she would be not eligible due to being dismissed. The wrongful dismissal suit was dismissed, and the claimant was told by her lawyer to file for antedated benefits. Waiting for the outcome of a wrongful dismissal suit is not usually viewed as good cause for antedating. However, the claimant in this case had been told by an agent that she would not qualify for Employment Insurance. The Umpire agreed with the Board that a reasonable person would not file a claim for benefits after being told by an agent that they would not qualify, and that the Commission is at fault. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2008

Misinformation from a Third Party

CUB 36384A Umipre Decision - The claimant received a severance package and was advised on numerous occasions that it was not necessary to apply for benefits as he would not be entitled to them while in receipt of severance pay. Because of misinformation of third party persons whom it is reasonable for the claimant to rely, a claimant who has taken all reasonable steps to appraise himself of his eligibility will be seen to have good cause for delay. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Daniel Kay
Date: 1997

CUB 37132 Umipre Decision - The claimant was late in filing his appeal. The claimant contacted his MP's office in March of 1996 and did not hear back from them until September, 1996. The four month delay was due to the advice of the MP's office. The umpire found that the claimant acted in good faith. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Trent Pirch
Date: 1997

CUB 46079 Umipre Decision - The claimant, who was laid off, collected severance pay equal to 16 months of salary. He filed an initial claim with the Commission and mentioned to the officer that he was thinking of starting up a business. She reportedly told him that " she would het an investigator after him" . He therefore withdrew his claim. He filed a second claim once his 16 months of severance pay was completed. To explain the 16 month delay, he wrote that he believed he had to wait until his severance pay was up before he filed a claim. The Umpire felt that the claimant in this case acted in good faith and conducted himself as a reasonable person would have by relying on instructions from his employer. See CUBs 36384A Umipre Decision and 40657 Umipre Decision. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Gilbert Deguire
Date: 1999

CUB 69878 Umpire Decision - The claimant was a part-time or substitute teacher. She was given a temporary contract and upon its expiration she applied for employment insurance. The Board of Referees found that the claimant did not do what a reasonable person would do by not inquiring with the Commission about the procedures surrounding her claim. The Umpire found that the Board overlooked the fact that the persons from whom the claimant sought advice, the union representative and the school principal were persons who are likely through experience to be knowledgeable regarding the rules of acquiring benefits and from whom she could anticipate accurate advice. The Umpire determined that the Board did not apply the established jurisprudence to determine the reasonable and prudent person. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Claimant
Date: 2007

Record of Employment- Delay

CUB 42827 Umipre Decision - The claimant wrote to the Commission as follows:

" I would like to appeal the decision to start my EI claim on Sept. 28, 1997. I think the claim should begin when I became unemployed June 29, 1997. I did not realize I should file my claim immediately after becoming employed as I did not receive my ROE which indicates that one should file immediately until Sept. 26, 1997...My attitude with respect to EI is that it should be used as a last resort and that is why I did not report my lay off right away. At the time I preferred to look for work without claiming EI...I have been actively looking for work during the periods in question and I wish to retroactively receive EI benefits for these periods in question."

In this appeal, the Umpire said " there is no mischief to be looked at" . In this case, the employee applied shortly after he received his ROE with the admonition to file immediately contained thereon. The courts have softened the structures of Limitation Statutes for the purpose of allowing legitimate claims. The appeal was allowed in part as set out above.
Appellant: Eric McGaw
Date: 1998

CUB 50741 Umipre Decision -The claimant took maternity leave on March 15, 2000 and gave birth on the 22nd of March. A strike that was in progress of municipal employees delayed the issue of a ROE until April 28. The claimant didn't complete a application for benefits until May 17, at this time she applied to have her claim antedated. She was under the impression that her application for benefits would be made by her employer and that the ROE would be sent in by the employer. She detailed her many attempts to retain her ROE, she told the Board that she finally received it the week of May 19th, May 19th was a Friday. She had already completed her application for benefits on May 17th. The two month delay in applying for claim was long but she was not prevented from making the claim earlier. The only issue at hand is whether or not the claimant had just cause in late filing of her application. It is reasonable for a person who has been told once before that they have to require their ROE to file their claim to put off filing for a subsequent claim until they had their ROE. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Andrea James
Date: 2001

CUB 51147 Umipre Decision -The claimant stated that he was under suspension in 1995 and was under the opinion that he couldn't do anything until the suspension was lifted. The claimant worked in 1995 and 1996 and created a new ROE, but did not inform the Commission. He went on to say that the claim had run out and he felt that he could not receive benefits until his prior claim was dealt with. The claimant also stated that he was of the opinion that he couldn't file until the prior claim was completed to its final conclusion. The Umpire was quoted as saying:

" I am satisfied in this particular case that where Mr. Whalen was still under suspension by the Commission that a reasonable person in his position would not believe that he could file a new claim until that one had been disposed of. I find the reasoning of Mr. Whalen quite acceptable and reasonable in the circumstances and for that reason the decision of the insurance officer should be reversed and Mr. Whalen permitted to proceed with his claim."

The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Ross Whalen
Date: 2001

CUB 51453 Umipre Decision -There were 15 weeks between his termination of employment and his filing for benefits. The main reason for the claimant's delay was the lack of access that he suffered by living in a remote area but the belief that he had been unjustly dismissed. All the issues in this case must be considered and looked at, the issues at hand are; the remoteness of the claimant's residence, belief that he had been unjustly dismissed, his attempt to regain his employment, the high rate of unemployment in his area and the effort that he put forth the rectify the situation between him and his employer. The Umpire was satisfied that there was enough evidence to conclude that the claimant acted as a reasonable person in the delay and that he had shown just cause for the delay of 10 weeks, following the receipt of the ROE, in applying for benefits. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Gilbert Scott
Date: 2001

CUB 52043 Umipre Decision - In a letter of appeal he explained that he was unsuccessful in obtaining his ROE from his employer, even though he had asked several times for it. He stated that he submitted his request as soon as he received his ROE. After reviewing the contents of the file the Umpire was satisfied that the circumstances of the case justify the length of time the claimant took in submitting his claim. It appears that the Commission and the Board based their decision on the fact that the claimant's employer was his daughter and that there should be no conflict between the two. The family tie that links the employer and the employee does not eliminate the possibility of conflict. The Umpire takes note that the situation affected the claimant and that he submitted his request for benefits as soon as he received his ROE. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Jean-Henri Bouteille
Date: 2001

CUB 63514 Umipre Decision - The majority found that the claimant did not make an inquiry call to the Commission. They apparently relied in the absence of any record of the call made by Commission staff. Umpires hear of the absence of such record so frequently that it is entirely believable that no record of a call was kept, particularly since the claimant had not at the time claimed benefits and no file would have been opened in the Commission offices. In the Umpire's view the conclusion of the majority that the claimant did not call the Commission in August 2003 was unreasonable. The claimant was told she could not receive benefits until the allocation of her severance pay ran out. She was not told that, regardless of that fact, she should immediately file her application for benefits. In those circumstances she had good cause for delay and her claim should have been antedated. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Janice Ralbosky
Date: 2005

CUB 66047 Umipre Decision - The claimant submitted a claim for benefits on November 28, 2005, effective November 27, 2005. He worked from April 4, 2005 to October 21, 2005, the date on which he was laid off owing to a work shortage. He asked that his request be antedated to October 30, 2005 because he thought that he had to wait for his waiting period to pass before submitting his request. The Commission refused to antedate the claimant's benefit claim because it was of the opinion that he had not shown that he had good cause for the entire period of his delay. The Commission based its decision on the fact that the claimant was a seasonal worker who had filed about 10 benefit claims in the past. He indicated that he filed his claim late because he waited to obtain his Record of Employment before filing his benefit claim. The Board of Referees did not accept the claimant's explanation and concluded that good faith and ignorance of the law did not excuse his failure to comply with a legislative requirement. The claimant's delay in filing was only about four weeks. The claimant's explanations fully justified this delay. Given that he was a seasonal worker, he filed a benefit claim every winter. He knew that he had to wait two weeks and always filed his benefit claim with his Record of Employment. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Jean-Paul Goulet
Date: 2006

CUB 67243 Umipre Decision - The claimant stated that she had come to Canada in July 2003. The employment with Cause Canada was her first job. Also, the job was out of the country. She had received no cheque stubs for her earnings. She was not aware that she had been contributing to employment insurance. It was only when she returned to Canada and went to Emploi-Quebec that she was sent to the local Canada Employment center and learned she was supposed to have a Record of Employment. She obtained the record only on August 19, 2005. The Board found that this was an exceptional case and unanimously allowed her appeal. The Commission argued that the delay in obtaining the Record of Employment was not a good cause for the claimant's lateness in filing, especially since she took no steps to obtain it sooner. The Umpire insinuated that ignorance of the law must not arise from indifference, personal negligence, lack of will or carelessness with respect to the law. The Umpire found that this is an exceptional situation which permits and explains that ignorance. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2006

CUB 70776 Umipre Decision - During the week of August 6, 2006, the claimant went to the employment centre office and was told by a Commission agent that he must have a Record of Employment before he could apply for benefits. His employer was out of the country until December 8, 2006. The employer would not be able to provide a ROE until the employer was back in the country. The claimant contacted the employer while the employer was still out of the country about the situation. As soon as the employer was back in the country, a ROE was provided. The claimant immediately filed for benefits, and stated he did not go back to the employment centre office because he had trusted the information provided by the Commission agent regarding the ROE. During the period between August 6 and December 8, the Umpire stated that the claimant did what a reasonable person would have done considering he did everything possible to get his ROE and filed immediately after getting the ROE. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Claimant
Date: 2008

Special Circumstances - Not Informed by the Commission

CUB 23072 Umipre Decision - The appeal was allowed because the claimant was not given the benefit of the doubt where letters were said to have been mailed to the claimant, but the claimant had denied having received them. In addition there was no certificate or other proof to the contrary. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Anthony Amor
Date: 1993

[  table of contents  |  next  ]