Decision A0283.10
Full Text of Decision A0283.10
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
waiting for job |
|
|
Summary:
This Umpire refused to antedate the claimant's EI benefit application as he failed to show good cause for a 16-month delay. The FCA held that a delay in applying based on an expectation of finding employment or a good faith reliance on one's own resources does not constitute «good cause» under 10(4) of the EIA. Further, there was no evidence that the claimants unfortunate extenuating circumstances would have explained the entire period of delay in any event.
Decision A0290.09
Full Text of Decision A0290.09
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
waiting for job |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant argued that his application for benefits should be antedated based on the fact that he believed that he was not entitled to EI benefits because he had a guarantee of a new position which he occupied for approximately one week. He had waited three weeks to receive his record of employment and he was actively searching for new employment. The FCA disagreed and found that none of the reasons constituted good cause.
Decision 71354
Full Text of Decision 71354
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
waiting for job |
|
|
Summary:
On August 13, 2007, the claimant applied to renew a claim for employment insurance benefits and the claim was renewed effective August 5, 2007. He requested to have his application for renewal of his claim antedated to April 8, 2007. The Commission refused the request to antedate the application because the claimant had not shown good cause for his delay. The reason given by the claimant for his delay in applying for benefits was that he thought he had found full-time work as a contractor for a media group but it turned out not to be permanent. In the case at bar, the claimant made no effort to inform himself of his rights and obligations for several months. This could not be said to represent what a reasonable person would have done in his circumstances. The appeal is dismissed.
Decision A0548.12
Full Text of Decision A0548.12
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
waiting for job |
existing opportunity |
|
Summary:
The claimant had surgery in 2009 and claimed EI sickness benefits during her medical leave from work. She was scheduled to return to work in September 2009. However, her employer delayed her return to work date to February 2010. She did not submit an application for regular benefits for that period until January 20, 2012. She requested that her claim be antedated to September 2009. In her request for an antedate, she explained that she did not know that she may have been entitled to receive regular benefits when she did not return to work in September 2009 and that she did not think that she would have enough hours of insurable employment to qualify for benefits. The Commission denied the claimant’s antedate request. The FCA supported the conclusion that she had not established good cause for delay.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
ignorance of the law |
duty to enquire |
|
Decision A0300.11
Full Text of Decision A0300.11
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
waiting for job |
existing opportunity |
|
Summary:
The claimant stopped working in September 2009 and he filed his EI claim only in January 2010. He requested that his claim be antedated to September 2009. He did not look for other work from September to December because he knew that there was a major project that was to start in December and he would be working at that time. He applied for benefits when he realized that the job would not happen during the winter. The Commission refused his request. The Commission find no good cause for the entire 17 week delay. The FCA found that the Umpire's arithmetic error in calculating the delay period was not material to the décision and he acted reasonably when it considered the claimant's reasons for his delay. The claimant had acted as any reasonable and prudent person would atc in the same circumstances.
Decision A0251.11
Full Text of Decision A0251.11
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
waiting for job |
existing opportunity |
|
Summary:
The claimant filed an initial claim for EI benefits on October 19, 2009 and he requested that his claim be antedated to April 2009. He had delayed 27 weeks after his last day of work before filing for benefits. He explained that he had not filed a claim for benefits earlier because he was expecting to return to work in September 2009, as he had in previous years. The BOR determined that the claimant did what a reasonable person would do. The Umpire has upheld the BOR’s decision holding that the claim for benefits should be antedated, pursuant to subsection 10(4) of the Act, because he demonstrated just cause for the delay in making his claim. The FCA determined that, given the unusual facts of this case, it cannot conclude the Umpire made any error of law or fact warranting their intervention and the antedate was allowed.
Decision 43392
Full Text of Decision 43392
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
waiting for job |
existing opportunity |
|
Summary:
According to the Umpire, there is just cause to warrant antedating since the claimant was unaware of the changes made to his contract. In this case, the claimant sincerely believed that his teaching contract took effect on July 1, 1997. However, during his holidays, things changed and he was issued a contract effective September 1, 1997. He thus became unemployed from June 30 to September 1. If he had been informed of this situation, he could have filed a claim immediately at the end of June.
Decision 36846
Full Text of Decision 36846
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
waiting for job |
existing opportunity |
|
Summary:
Claimant expected to be off work for a short time. Did not apply because he did not want to burden the UI system. Umpire concluded that however laudatory his motive were he cannot in law furnish "just cause" for the delay though the motives may be seen as "good cause". Unfortunately, the terms are not in law, synonymous.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
conscious choice |
need not urgent |
|
Decision 27518
Full Text of Decision 27518
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
waiting for job |
existing opportunity |
|
Summary:
Laid-off on 17-10-92; told the lay-off was temporary, that he would be recalled during the holidays and would make up the lost time. Held that a reasonable person concerned with satisfying himself as to his rights and obligations would, at least, not have waited 3 months before contacting the CEIC.
Decision 27517
Full Text of Decision 27517
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
waiting for job |
existing opportunity |
|
Summary:
Delay of 7 weeks: believed he needed to have worked 4 months to qualify and employer had told him that he would be recalled as soon as a job became available. Held that he did what a reasonnable person would have done since he believed he was still employed; the Board erred in deciding as it did.
Decision 26420
Full Text of Decision 26420
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
waiting for job |
existing opportunity |
|
Summary:
Claimant thought that casual work which she had acquired would begin forthwith but such was not the case as there was a labour strike and she did not apply for UI until one month later. The Board found that she did not enquire at any CEIC office and she made a personal choice. No error by the Board.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
waiting for record of employment |
|
|
Decision 22172
Full Text of Decision 22172
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
waiting for job |
existing opportunity |
|
Summary:
The delay is of a very short duration, just over 3 months. Claimant, based on previous years' experience, acted reasonably in expecting some roofing contracts. When none materialized and when the situation continued to worsen to the point of bankruptcy,he acted fairly diligently in filing a claim.
Decision 17905
Full Text of Decision 17905
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
waiting for job |
existing opportunity |
|
Summary:
3 week delay; waiting for record of employment and possibility of a new job. It seems to me that someone reasonable would have acted differently: she would have filed a claim and then proceeded with an active job search.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
waiting for record of employment |
|
|
Decision 16100
Full Text of Decision 16100
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
waiting for job |
existing opportunity |
|
Summary:
Last day of work 29-11-86; UI claim: 20-1-87; was to start a new job on 8-12-86. This is not a valid reason. Ignorance of the law is no a valid reason. A claimant must ensure that he has done everything necessary to obtain information.
Decision 13029A
Full Text of Decision 13029A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
waiting for job |
existing opportunity |
|
Summary:
Aware of requirements of Act. Had been promised a job starting on 1-9 which became available only on 24-1. Claim for benefit on 29-11. Did not act reasonably, according to board. No error.
Decision 14591
Full Text of Decision 14591
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
waiting for job |
existing opportunity |
|
Summary:
Teacher laid off 20-6. Did not file until Sept. since, had she been hired for the next school year, her contract would have been effective 1-7. Claimant had a prospect of employment but no promise. Borderline case. Board's decision not to be disturbed.
Decision 14150
Full Text of Decision 14150
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
waiting for job |
existing opportunity |
|
Summary:
Delay of 2 months. Jurisprudence has established that the mere expectation of a job is not good cause. As stated in CUB 12818, a reasonably prudent person does not rely solely upon his own unfounded and blind assumptions.
Decision 13239
Full Text of Decision 13239
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
waiting for job |
existing opportunity |
|
Summary:
She had been led to believe that she still had employment prospects with her former employer. The mere prospect at some remote future time does not equate to actual employment. A reasonable and responsible person would normally be expected to contact the Commission.
Decision 13175
Full Text of Decision 13175
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
waiting for job |
existing opportunity |
|
Summary:
Left her job to accept another one. Then informed by prospective employer there would be a delay. Position cancelled after 4 weeks of delays.
Decision 11434
Full Text of Decision 11434
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
waiting for job |
existing opportunity |
|
Summary:
The test is whether claimant acted reasonably. Given the offer of work received by claimant on 26-7, it may have been reasonable for him to delay until advised 21-10 that the employment would be delayed for several months, but no evidence of good cause from then on until 19-2.
Decision A-0024.01
Full Text of Decision A-0024.01
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
waiting for job |
searching for work |
|
Summary:
The claimant delayed making his claim until the allocation of his severance pay had ended. The Court found that the intention not to claim EI and to seek alternative employment is not good cause.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
disentitlement period at issue |
earnings |
|
Decision 43288
Full Text of Decision 43288
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
waiting for job |
searching for work |
|
Summary:
There is not doubt that attempting to obtain employment while living on his personal savings and the monies which he derived from the sale of a house, is commendable. It has, however, been established in the jurisprudence time and again, that such reasons are not acceptable as good cause within the meaning of the EI Act and its Regulations.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
conscious choice |
need not urgent |
|
Decision 40272
Full Text of Decision 40272
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
waiting for job |
searching for work |
|
Summary:
Clmt first used the money she had put aside and was in hope of finding a job before applying for benefits. Umpire ruled that clmt did not do what a reasonable person in her circumstances would have done to ascertain her rights and responsibilities in applying for benefits.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
ignorance of the law |
duty to enquire |
|
Decision A-0216.93
Full Text of Decision A-0216.93
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
waiting for job |
searching for work |
|
Summary:
Antedate allowed by Board for nearly 6 months. The Board did not err in law. The reasons of the Board indicate that the illness of the claimant and her desire to find work on her own were the motivating factors in its judgment, said the Umpire. No reviewable error on the part of the Umpire.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
health reasons |
|
|
| antedate |
very exceptional circumstances |
|
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of facts |
|
Decision A-0549.92
Full Text of Decision A-0549.92
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
waiting for job |
searching for work |
|
Summary:
True, he consciously opted to seek new employment 6 months rather than throw himself on the UI system which he may have had a perfect right to do. He deserves much credit for the steps taken to avoid the making of a claim. Nonetheless, that attitude, however laudatory, does not furnish "good cause".
The delay in making the claim was induced by the best of possible motives on his part, that of seeking new employment rather than falling back on UI benefits. Such motives, pure as they were, do not on the present state of the law allow him to antedate his claim on the ground that he had good cause.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
very exceptional circumstances |
|
|
| antedate |
good cause |
test to apply |
|
Decision 20767
Full Text of Decision 20767
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
waiting for job |
searching for work |
|
Summary:
Left after 10 years to return to school. Delayed claiming 7 weeks after end of school year. It is entirely natural for someone who has no experience with UI to delay applying if they expect to secure work quickly. Delay not long. Not familiar with system. Actively sought work.
Decision 19195
Full Text of Decision 19195
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
waiting for job |
searching for work |
|
Summary:
Did not consider UI benefits, or applying for them, so confident was he of finding work, until after efforts to find work proved unsuccessful 2 months later. While he is to be commended for his self-reliance, a reasonable and prudent person would not rely on his own assumption.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
rationale |
|
|
Decision 16674
Full Text of Decision 16674
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
waiting for job |
searching for work |
|
Summary:
Laid off on 13-1, he sent his CV to 145 employers; hoping to find a job immediately, he waited until 27-3 to apply for UI. A reasonable person would have first made his application and then immediately looked for work.
Decision 14745
Full Text of Decision 14745
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
waiting for job |
searching for work |
|
Summary:
She did not do what a reasonable and prudent person would have done, did not contact CEC in Barrie until a month after arriving there from Alberta. I accept she was looking for work but her fundamental obligation when seeking UI was to contact CEC immediately.
Decision 13620
Full Text of Decision 13620
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
waiting for job |
searching for work |
|
Summary:
Delay of 14 weeks. A reasonable person in the situation of the claimant would have checked with the Commission to satisfy herself as to her exact rights.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
proof |
|
|
Decision 12839
Full Text of Decision 12839
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
waiting for job |
searching for work |
|
Summary:
The Board put the emphasis on the positive results of claimant's search for employment rather than on the reasons for delay. Error of law. CUB 8126 referred to. Board's decision upheld by Umpire on another ground.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
misinformation from Commission |
|
|
Decision A-0395.85
Full Text of Decision A-0395.85
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
waiting for job |
searching for work |
|
Summary:
Listed with some agencies, she believed that she could have found work at any time. Claim filed 14 months later. Claimant's error as to her situation and her right to UI together with her good faith is not enough. This is precisely what was dealt with in PIROTTE and ALBRECHT.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
very exceptional circumstances |
|
|
| antedate |
ignorance of the law |
good faith |
|
| antedate |
ignorance of the law |
not an excuse |
|
| antedate |
ignorance of the law |
duty to enquire |
|
| antedate |
good cause |
test to apply |
|
Decision A-1865.83
Full Text of Decision A-1865.83
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
waiting for job |
searching for work |
|
Summary:
Neither his expressed hope that he might find full employment nor his apparent distaste for UI could constitute a reasonable cause for delay. [p. 16]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
full working week |
|
|
| antedate |
ignorance of the law |
not an excuse |
|
| antedate |
disentitlement period at issue |
employed |
|
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
meaning of a term |
|
