Summary of Issue: Good Cause

Decision A0291.09 Full Text of Decision A0291.09

The claimant had indicated that the delay in filing his claim was due to his difficulty accessing Teledec, his lack of English language skills, the shortage of information from Service Canada and his belief that he had exhausted all of his benefits with his initial claim. In this case, because of the difficulty that the claimant had in accessing Teledec and because of his limited knowledge of EI benefits due to his language barrier and lack of assistance from Service Canada, the BOR finds the Commission's decision was incorrect. The Board finds that the claimant acted as any reasonable person would have acted in the same situation and showed that he had good cause for the delay. The FCA rejected the AG's arguments indicating that the Umpire had not been shown that the Board erred in applying the legal test for good cause.

Decision 69140 Full Text of Decision 69140

It is not sufficient for Service Canada to require all applicants to report either by using the internet or by using the teledec system. The system of report cards has been in use for a great number of years and although it may be more convenient for Service Canada, it may not be convenient for claimants who do not have the knowledge or education required to report in that manner.

Decision A0597.05 Full Text of Decision A0597.05

Does the claimant have to show good cause for the delay in making a claim during the waiting period. Having found that the claimant did not have to make claims for the waiting period, the Court said it was unnecessary to deal with the issue of good cause. But it said that if it had to, it would have found good cause present for the very reason expressed by the Umpire in Bennett (CUB 25520A).

Decision A0124.11 Full Text of Decision A0124.11

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.

Decision A0223.12 Full Text of Decision A0223.12

(101 other similar cases) The Seasonal Agricultural Workers Program (SAWP) has been in effect for many years and enables employers in the agricultural sector to recruit temporary workers from the time of crop planting to harvesting. The claimants applied for EI parental benefits between 2008 and 2010 and requested that their applications be antedated for periods ranging from 6 months to 18 years. They alleged that they were unable to apply for parental benefits earlier due to their difficult working conditions, language barriers, low education levels, limited access to information, and isolation from the community. The Commission denied their antedate requests. The FCA found that the Umpire erred in law in failing to take into account the general barriers facing SAWP workers and their individual situations in claiming EI benefit. The FCA also found that, since there was no requirement that a claimant for parental benefits be available for work, administrative difficulties of proving claims should not be factored into a determination of whether the claimant had good cause for the delay.

Decision A-0004.95 Full Text of Decision A-0004.95

Two factors were considered by the umpire: the claims requested (at age 65) are of a type that one would not expect to find in an unemployment insurance system, and the insured had contributed to the system for 30 years. It is deemed that these two factors have nothing to do with the delay invoked.

Decision A-1283.92 Full Text of Decision A-1283.92

In the case of sickness or maternity benefits, the prejudice to the proper functioning of the system is relatively inexistent. proof of the patient's pathology, or pregnancy, can be easily determined. Good cause could be given a more liberal interpretation. Quashed in F.C.

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.