Decision 46459
Full Text of Decision 46459
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
antedate |
applicability |
good cause for part period |
|
Summary:
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.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
antedate |
ignorance of the law |
duty to enquire |
|
Decision A-0371.93
Full Text of Decision A-0371.93
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
antedate |
applicability |
implicit request |
|
Summary:
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.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
antedate |
qualifying conditions |
a requirement |
|
board of referees |
issue not recognized |
jurisdiction exceeded |
|
umpires |
jurisdiction |
question not at issue |
|
Decision A-1191.88
Full Text of Decision A-1191.88
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
antedate |
applicability |
implicit request |
|
Summary:
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.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
claim procedure |
applicability |
general |
|
board of referees |
legislative authority |
acquired rights |
|
earnings |
pension |
as income |
|
board of referees |
rules of construction |
effective date of proviso |
|
board of referees |
rules of construction |
intent and object |
|
Decision A0011.10
Full Text of Decision A0011.10
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
antedate |
applicability |
length of delay |
|
Summary:
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.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
umpires |
errors in law |
|
|
Decision 35066
Full Text of Decision 35066
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
antedate |
applicability |
length of delay |
|
Summary:
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.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
antedate |
misinformation from third party |
|
|
umpires |
grounds of appeal |
not a trial de novo |
|
Decision A0430.08
Full Text of Decision A0430.08
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
antedate |
applicability |
subsequent claim |
|
Summary:
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.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
claim procedure |
filing an application |
time prescribed |
|