| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
good cause |
test to apply |
|
Summary:
The jurisprudence is clear: good faith and ignorance of the law do not in themselves excuse a failure to comply with a legislative requirement; moreover a claimant must also show that they did what a reasonnable person would have done to satisfy themselves as to their rights and obligations.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
disentitlement period at issue |
courses |
|
Summary:
Student, knowing that she would not be available, did not make her claim until her studies were completed; only 6 insurable weeks remained instead of the 14 required to establish a benefit claim. Asked for 8 weeks antidate. Stated that she was not negligent and this kind of ignorance is acceptable. Quashed in F.C.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
ignorance of the law |
good faith |
|
Summary:
The jurisprudence is clear: good faith and ignorance of the law do not in themselves excuse a failure to comply with a legislative requirement; moreover a claimant must also show that they did what a reasonnable person would have done to satisfy themselves as to their rights and obligations.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
ignorance of the law |
not an excuse |
|
Summary:
The Umpire's conclusion is precisely that which was dismissed in CARON as follows: The claimant's misconception of her situation and her rights to receive benefits together with her good faith did not amount to good cause under section 20(4).
