Summary of Issue: Not An Excuse

Decision 41494 Full Text of Decision 41494

Claimant alleged that he did not know how the system worked and did not think he could claim benefits until his separation pay, equivalent to 62 weeks of salary, had run out. The case law has repeatedly held that claimants cannot plead ignorance of the law as a good cause for a delay in making a claim if they did nothing to overcome that ignorance by informing themselves of their rights.

Decision A-0690.94 Full Text of Decision A-0690.94

Claimant on unpaid leave for 15 months files a claim at the end of the leave. The delay was attributable solely to the fact that she did not think she was entitled to benefits as long as her employment continued. This was an error. Ignorance of the law is not justified.

Decision A-0706.94 Full Text of Decision A-0706.94

Delays not by reason of ignorance of the law but by reason of a mistaken belief that under the law she did not have enough weeks to qualify, said the Umpire. We cannot agree with this attempt to distinguish between ignorance of the law and a mistaken belief as to the law. Anyone holding such a mistaken belief (that under the law she did not have enough weeks to qualify) and living in a family which had never been involved in UI claims might be deemed to have acted reasonably by applying only when the mistake was made known, said the Umpire. Upheld by FC.

Decision A-0185.94 Full Text of Decision A-0185.94

The second error is that the alleged new facts are not facts which could have constituted "good cause for delay". As was recently stated by this Court in LAROUCHE, good faith and ignorance of the law are not by themselves a valid excuse for not having complied with legal provisions.

Decision A-0644.93 Full Text of Decision A-0644.93

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).

Decision 17192 Full Text of Decision 17192

If a claimant has other valid reasons which may happen to include ignorance of his entitlement to benefits, he will still enjoy the benefit of antedating so long as he can demonstrate that he has acted in a reasonable manner to satisfy himself as to hisrights and obligations.

Decision A-0395.85 Full Text of Decision A-0395.85

The chief concern of the Court in ALBRECHT was to reject the line of thinking which seemed to be gaining increasing acceptance that ignorance of the law precluded any possibility of good cause unless it resulted from some wrongful act by the Commission itself. To say that ignorance excludes good cause is contrary to the whole spirit of the Act since in all cases of delay there is inevitably some measure of ignorance. However, that Court in ALBRECHT restated its agreement with PIROTTE that ignorance by itself is not enough.

Decision 11086 Full Text of Decision 11086

In ALBRECHT, there was good cause when one acted on the advice of third persons from whom it was reasonable to take advice. It does not apply to one who did nothing to obtain advice, not even erroneous advice. Claimant here made no effort to find out from anyone.

Decision A-0825.84 Full Text of Decision A-0825.84

Laid off 30-11-81; claim filed 22-4-82. The fact that claimant was unaware that he qualified for benefits did not constitute in law good cause. See PIROTTE.

Decision A-1865.83 Full Text of Decision A-1865.83

The Umpire recognized that a delay caused by one's mistaken understanding of his legal rights and duties is not good cause. In recognizing that a mere mistake of law is not good cause, he was obviously aware of PIROTTE. [p. 13]

Decision A-1261.83 Full Text of Decision A-1261.83

Claimant ceased work in 9-80 and continued to receive monthly salary until 4-81. He learned later this was a retiring allowance and not earnings. Ignorance or mistake induced by employer's representations is not good cause as per PIROTTE.

Decision A-0108.76 Full Text of Decision A-0108.76

It must be assumed that when Parliament referred to "just cause" it did not intend to depart from the general principles of law. It is a fundamental principle that ignorance of the law does not excuse failure to comply with a statutory requirement.