Summary of Issue: Applicability

Decision 46459 Full Text of Decision 46459

Claimant received his full salary from March 1997 to March 1998 after his separation, but only filed a benefit claim on 12-08-98. One might come to the conclusion that for the period of one year during which he was receiving his full salary, the claimant might have thought he was not entitled to any benefits. However, after his return to Quebec in May 1998, he did not have any valid reason for not inquiring with Employment Insurance.

Decision A-0371.93 Full Text of Decision A-0371.93

Issue of antedating raised before the Board but there was no such request before the CEIC. The Umpire erred in holding that, although there may not have been an express request, the CEIC implicitly dealt with the issue since it had to determine the commencement date of the benefit period.

Decision A-1191.88 Full Text of Decision A-1191.88

He had not made his claim in 12-85 as it was his intention to do when he attended the office. The mere intention to do something can, in no circumstances, be equated to the doing of the thing. If the law clearly requires the doing of an act, the intention to do it is not enough.

Decision A0011.10 Full Text of Decision A0011.10

The claimant filed an application for benefits approximately two years after his last day of work on July 12, 2006. He requested that his application be antedated to September 2006. He claimed that he was told, during two telephone conversations with a Commission agent that he did not qualify for benefits as he was not an immigrant. The FCA found that there was no explanation provided as to why the claimant delayed applying for benefits between the date when he stopped work in July 2006 and when he first contacted the Commission in October 2006. Application for judicial review allowed.

Decision 35066 Full Text of Decision 35066

Request for a 40 week antedate. Commission believes that good cause, once established, can "rust" or dissolve if asserted "too long". Held that if and when a claimant's being misinformed be good cause for delay, such good cause endures naturally and legally until displaced by correct information.

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.