Summary of Issue: Time Prescribed

Decision 76327 Full Text of Decision 76327

The claimant was laid off on November 7, 2008, and travelled to India from January to July 2, 2009. On August 19, 2009 she filed an initial claim and requested that her claim be antedated to November 9, 2008. The Board noted that the claimant is illiterate and it is on the advice of friends that she filed her application for benefits. The claimant filed a medical report from an Indian doctor indicating that she had been treated in India following a car accident. She was treated from February 2, 2009 to June 15, 2009. The Board considered this medical certificate as an explanation for the claimant’s longer stay in India. There is evidence to support the Board’s conclusion that in this case the exceptional illiteracy noted by the Board could constitute good cause to explain the delay in making the application for benefits. The appeal by the commission is dismissed.

Decision 74438 Full Text of Decision 74438

The claimant's last working day was July 31, 2008. She was absent from Canada during December 2008 and it is only upon her return in January 2009 that applied for EI benefits. Until then she claims she was unaware of her rights to claim benefits. As a result, her initial claim for EI benefits was filed only on January 15. The record of employment was received on February 10. The Commission decided that the claimant did not have good cause in the delay in filing her claim because she made a choice not to apply and/or inquire regarding the benefits she would have been entitled to simply because she assumed wrongly she was on a "forced leave of absence" from a job she would regain as soon as she could pass the certification exams which she failed on three occasions. The Commission considered that it was the claimant's responsibility to enquire about her rights and responsibilities, and to obtain advice about procedures regarding timely and correct filing procedures. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed.

Decision A0430.08 Full Text of Decision A0430.08

The Umpire had set aside the decision of the BOR which had confirmed the Commission's decision to the effect that the claimant was not entitled to benefits because he had failed to fill-out or file his subsequent claims within the time limit prescribed in s. 10 of the EIA. The FCA held that the Umpire had no authority yo intervene unless he explained why the BOR's decision was unreasonable, which he did not do. In fact, in his analysis of s. 10(5) of the EIA, the Umpire simply substituted his assessment of the facts for that of the BOR.

Decision 17511 Full Text of Decision 17511

Good cause not shown for a 3-week delay. I understand that the Commission has unconditionally decided that claimants would have 6 weeks instead of 3 to file their continuing claims. It is not open to the Commission to apply that policy selectively. It applies to the claimant.

Decision 14018 Full Text of Decision 14018

2-week period: 19-8 to 1-9. Cards cannot be completed and mailed until period expired. Any time requirement must commence on day following, here 2-9. 3-week requirement not expired until 23-9. Card received in week 23-9, exact date not known and resolved in claimant's favour.

Decision A-0757.85 Full Text of Decision A-0757.85

Disentitlement from 5-8 rescinded 12-9. Report cards effective 12-8 returned 23-9. Claimant then disentitled from 12-8 to 22-9. One may wonder what basis there was for disentitlement from 12-9 to 22-9. It is clear that the 3-week delay was not elapsed when report card received.

Decision 11098 Full Text of Decision 11098

Refer to: A-0757.85

Decision 12404 Full Text of Decision 12404

Late claim uancceptable for week of 9 and 16-9. Claim renewed on 19-10, a Friday, and in reality was continuous claim taking effect 3 weeks earlier under Reg. 34(1), as of 23-9.

Decision 12013 Full Text of Decision 12013

4 weeks in issue; first week in question is necessarily outside 3 week period referred to in Reg. 34.

Decision 11572 Full Text of Decision 11572

Report for 8 to 21-4 mailed on 17-4 (too late). CEIC returned to claimant who did nothing. Decision cannot be challenged for week of 15-4. Denial of benefit for week of 8-4 not justified.