Summary of Issue: Existing Opportunity

Decision A0548.12 Full Text of Decision A0548.12

The claimant had surgery in 2009 and claimed EI sickness benefits during her medical leave from work. She was scheduled to return to work in September 2009. However, her employer delayed her return to work date to February 2010. She did not submit an application for regular benefits for that period until January 20, 2012. She requested that her claim be antedated to September 2009. In her request for an antedate, she explained that she did not know that she may have been entitled to receive regular benefits when she did not return to work in September 2009 and that she did not think that she would have enough hours of insurable employment to qualify for benefits. The Commission denied the claimant’s antedate request. The FCA supported the conclusion that she had not established good cause for delay.

Decision A0300.11 Full Text of Decision A0300.11

The claimant stopped working in September 2009 and he filed his EI claim only in January 2010. He requested that his claim be antedated to September 2009. He did not look for other work from September to December because he knew that there was a major project that was to start in December and he would be working at that time. He applied for benefits when he realized that the job would not happen during the winter. The Commission refused his request. The Commission find no good cause for the entire 17 week delay. The FCA found that the Umpire's arithmetic error in calculating the delay period was not material to the décision and he acted reasonably when it considered the claimant's reasons for his delay. The claimant had acted as any reasonable and prudent person would atc in the same circumstances.

Decision A0251.11 Full Text of Decision A0251.11

The claimant filed an initial claim for EI benefits on October 19, 2009 and he requested that his claim be antedated to April 2009. He had delayed 27 weeks after his last day of work before filing for benefits. He explained that he had not filed a claim for benefits earlier because he was expecting to return to work in September 2009, as he had in previous years. The BOR determined that the claimant did what a reasonable person would do. The Umpire has upheld the BOR’s decision holding that the claim for benefits should be antedated, pursuant to subsection 10(4) of the Act, because he demonstrated just cause for the delay in making his claim. The FCA determined that, given the unusual facts of this case, it cannot conclude the Umpire made any error of law or fact warranting their intervention and the antedate was allowed.

Decision 43392 Full Text of Decision 43392

According to the Umpire, there is just cause to warrant antedating since the claimant was unaware of the changes made to his contract. In this case, the claimant sincerely believed that his teaching contract took effect on July 1, 1997. However, during his holidays, things changed and he was issued a contract effective September 1, 1997. He thus became unemployed from June 30 to September 1. If he had been informed of this situation, he could have filed a claim immediately at the end of June.

Decision 36846 Full Text of Decision 36846

Claimant expected to be off work for a short time. Did not apply because he did not want to burden the UI system. Umpire concluded that however laudatory his motive were he cannot in law furnish "just cause" for the delay though the motives may be seen as "good cause". Unfortunately, the terms are not in law, synonymous.

Decision 27518 Full Text of Decision 27518

Laid-off on 17-10-92; told the lay-off was temporary, that he would be recalled during the holidays and would make up the lost time. Held that a reasonable person concerned with satisfying himself as to his rights and obligations would, at least, not have waited 3 months before contacting the CEIC.

Decision 27517 Full Text of Decision 27517

Delay of 7 weeks: believed he needed to have worked 4 months to qualify and employer had told him that he would be recalled as soon as a job became available. Held that he did what a reasonnable person would have done since he believed he was still employed; the Board erred in deciding as it did.

Decision 26420 Full Text of Decision 26420

Claimant thought that casual work which she had acquired would begin forthwith but such was not the case as there was a labour strike and she did not apply for UI until one month later. The Board found that she did not enquire at any CEIC office and she made a personal choice. No error by the Board.

Decision 22172 Full Text of Decision 22172

The delay is of a very short duration, just over 3 months. Claimant, based on previous years' experience, acted reasonably in expecting some roofing contracts. When none materialized and when the situation continued to worsen to the point of bankruptcy,he acted fairly diligently in filing a claim.

Decision 17905 Full Text of Decision 17905

3 week delay; waiting for record of employment and possibility of a new job. It seems to me that someone reasonable would have acted differently: she would have filed a claim and then proceeded with an active job search.

Decision 16100 Full Text of Decision 16100

Last day of work 29-11-86; UI claim: 20-1-87; was to start a new job on 8-12-86. This is not a valid reason. Ignorance of the law is no a valid reason. A claimant must ensure that he has done everything necessary to obtain information.

Decision 13029A Full Text of Decision 13029A

Aware of requirements of Act. Had been promised a job starting on 1-9 which became available only on 24-1. Claim for benefit on 29-11. Did not act reasonably, according to board. No error.

Decision 14591 Full Text of Decision 14591

Teacher laid off 20-6. Did not file until Sept. since, had she been hired for the next school year, her contract would have been effective 1-7. Claimant had a prospect of employment but no promise. Borderline case. Board's decision not to be disturbed.

Decision 14150 Full Text of Decision 14150

Delay of 2 months. Jurisprudence has established that the mere expectation of a job is not good cause. As stated in CUB 12818, a reasonably prudent person does not rely solely upon his own unfounded and blind assumptions.

Decision 13239 Full Text of Decision 13239

She had been led to believe that she still had employment prospects with her former employer. The mere prospect at some remote future time does not equate to actual employment. A reasonable and responsible person would normally be expected to contact the Commission.

Decision 13175 Full Text of Decision 13175

Left her job to accept another one. Then informed by prospective employer there would be a delay. Position cancelled after 4 weeks of delays.

Decision 11434 Full Text of Decision 11434

The test is whether claimant acted reasonably. Given the offer of work received by claimant on 26-7, it may have been reasonable for him to delay until advised 21-10 that the employment would be delayed for several months, but no evidence of good cause from then on until 19-2.