Summary of Issue: Test To Apply

Decision A0481.07 Full Text of Decision A0481.07

In order to establish good cause, an applicant must "be 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" (A-172-85 - Albrecht). In the present instance, the claimant states that from July 2004 (to March 2006) forward he believed that his former employer was deliberately withholding his record of employment. In these circumstances, a reasonable person would not have continued relying on his employer's earlier advice that benefits cannot be claimed unless and until the record of employment is received. In addition, there is no evidence on the record that the respondent sought additional advice or a second opinion on this issue. A proper application of the legal test to the facts leads to the conclusion that a person in the claimant's situation would have enquired about his rights and obligations and the steps that he should take to protect his claim for benefits. An obvious place for enquire would have been the Commission.

Decision A-0644.93 Full Text of Decision A-0644.93

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.

Decision A-1283.92 Full Text of Decision A-1283.92

We can not conceive that the additional evidence obtained by the Board could have shown that the claimant, while delaying to file his claim, has acted as a prudent and reasonable person during the whole period. Thus, error in law on the part of the Board.

Decision A-0549.92 Full Text of Decision A-0549.92

It is now clear that in any particular case an applicant for antedating a claim for benefits must demonstrate "good cause" by showing that "he did what a reasonable and prudent person would have done in the same circumstances": CARON and ALBRECHT.

Decision A-0175.87 Full Text of Decision A-0175.87

The Umpire said that good cause consists of circumstances beyond control. That mis-states the law. Not part of judicial function to formulate general rules that will inhibit a finding of good cause. As stated in GAUTHIER, good cause may include a reasonable, conscious delay.

Decision A-0395.85 Full Text of Decision A-0395.85

Claimant must show that he did what a reasonable and prudent person would have done in the same circumstances, either to clarify the situation regarding his employment or to determine his rights and obligations.