| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
errors in law |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant argued that her application for benefits should be antedated based on the fact that she was illiterate and did not apply for benefits earlier because her employer indicated she would be called back when more work was available. Under 10(4) of the Act, the antedating of claims is permissible in circumstances where good cause for the delay in applying for benefits is established. To establish good cause, the jurisprudence requires that a claimant be able to show that she did what a reasonable person in her situation would have done. The Umpire reviewed the factual context, referred to excerpts from the Board's decision and concluded the claimant's illiteracy constituted good cause. However, the Umpire did not refer to any jurisprudence. The FCA also concluded that the Umpire erred when he failed to intervene and address the applicable law regarding “good cause for delay”.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
good cause |
illiteracy |
|
Summary:
The claimant argued that her application for benefits should be antedated based on the fact that she was illiterate and did not apply for benefits earlier because her employer indicated she would be called back when more work was available. Under 10(4) of the Act, the antedating of claims is permissible in circumstances where good cause for the delay in applying for benefits is established. To establish good cause, the jurisprudence requires that a claimant be able to show that she did what a reasonable person in her situation would have done. The Umpire reviewed the factual context, referred to excerpts from the Board's decision and concluded the claimant's illiteracy constituted good cause. However, the Umpire did not refer to any jurisprudence. The FCA also concluded that the Umpire erred when he failed to intervene and address the applicable law regarding “good cause for delay”. Application for judicial review allowed and the matter was returned to a new constituted BOR to set out the proper legal test.
