Summary of Issue: Rationale

Decision 27354 Full Text of Decision 27354

First, the Commission must assure a proper and efficient administration of claims. In order to do that, one must pursue a claim diligently. The other collateral reason is that the Commission must be in a position to constantly review the eligibility of claimants to whom benefits are being paid.

Decision 25729 Full Text of Decision 25729

The CEIC may well be prejudiced as a result of delays in filing of claimants. When claimants do not make claims promptly, the CEIC loses the opportunity to investigate the circumstances relating to the claim and misses the opportunity to advise claimants as to how they might go about finding work.

Decision 23803 Full Text of Decision 23803

Claimants are required to file their claims for benefit promptly in order to insure that the Commission is in a position to evaluate eligibility for benefits not only at the commencement of the benefit period but throughout the entire period.

Decision A-1283.92 Full Text of Decision A-1283.92

The public interest must always be looked at in light of the prejudice that a particular delay could cause. Antedating may often give too much freedom to the claimant, entitling him to benefits retroactively without taking into consideration the usual requirements. Quashed in F.C.

Decision 21922 Full Text of Decision 21922

Retroactivity has the automatic effect of entitling one to UI for the whole retroactive period. It is to avoid this discriminating treatment that the statute imposes the duty of filing in a timely manner. Any delay invites that kind of situation while prejudicing the UI system.

Decision 20940 Full Text of Decision 20940

Antedates are not readily given because it is difficult if not impossible for the CEIC to verify the entitlement to benefits of a claimant retroactively, including for example, adequate job searches. An antedate of 15 months is such a long period as to be almost unprecedented.

Decision 19195 Full Text of Decision 19195

To determine entitlement for periods in the past would result in unwarranted difficulties and possible prejudice to the CEIC. For instance, the CEIC's ability to monitor any job search efforts or other requirements normally associated with regular benefits would be impaired.

Decision 18656 Full Text of Decision 18656

Purpose of the provisions to be considered. The failure to meet time limits must be measured in the light of the prejudice which might be caused to the proper administration of the system and the relative difficulty of CEIC staff to put a tardy claimantto a retroactive test.

Decision 18145 Full Text of Decision 18145

Antedating effectively provides for the payment of benefits on a carte blanche basis. A retroactive lump sum payment is paid out without the opportunity of delving into one's eligibility throughout the retroactive period. For this reason antedating mustbe an exceptional measure. As stated in CUB 14019 that purpose is two-fold, to assure the proper administration and efficient processing of various claims and to enable the CEIC to review constantly the continuing eligibility. The timely filing is the only way to monitor the system and prevent abuses.

Decision 17547 Full Text of Decision 17547

Delay of 4 years. There exists in law various limitation periods governing the conduct of many actions before the courts and it is only reasonable that applications should be required to be timely if for no other reason than assisting the Commission in reconstructing the events.

Decision 17296 Full Text of Decision 17296

UI is a social programme for people who are disadvantaged in their desire to work. Since nothing is to be gained by denying UI to people otherwise entitled on purely technical grounds that they have not filed at the right time, Parliament has enacted the antedating provisions.

Decision 15236A Full Text of Decision 15236A

Claimant can see no reason why a claim is less valid if filed 7 months late. Ss.20(4) clearly contemplates immediate filing. The reason is said to be the administrative need to be able to identify and verify the relevant events as they occur, while information is still available.

Decision 14326 Full Text of Decision 14326

The principle behind antedating is that Parliament has no interest in preventing people on purely technical grounds, from receiving benefits to which they are otherwise legitimately entitled.

Decision 12853 Full Text of Decision 12853

Not a rule solely to meet bureaucratic requirements, but to ensure that requirements of 25(a) are met; this issue may be investigated on current basis but not retroactively.

Decision 12818 Full Text of Decision 12818

The legislative provisions setting out the requirements for making an initial claim have been enacted by Parliament to ensure the efficient and effective administration of the UI scheme. They are not meaningless nor redundant. They are the law and must be complied with. [p. 5]

Decision 12762 Full Text of Decision 12762

Good cause is undefined by the legislation. Prompt filing is a basic requirement for proper administration. Undue delays not conducive to orderly operation. To abide by the requirements is an essential condition.

Decision 11229A Full Text of Decision 11229A

If the Commission really requires such rigorously prompt filing of documented claims in order to avoid administrative difficulties, something effective ought to be done to make claimants aware of this, perhaps mass oral advertising.

Decision A-0108.76 Full Text of Decision A-0108.76

It is clear from ss. 20(1) and 53 to 55 that making claim in prescribed manner is a condition of entitlement to benefit. It seems that the Act wishes to encourage speedy making claims quickly to ensure that the insured is entitled to benefit.