Decision A-0242.05
Full Text of Decision A-0242.05
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
antedate |
ignorance of the law |
good faith |
|
Summary:
The Commission refused an antedate request for a nine month delay in applying for EI. The FCA stated that a reasonable person is expected to take reasonably prompt steps to determine their entitlement to EI and that ignorance of the law and good faith is insufficient to amount to good cause for delaying an application for EI.
Decision A-0341.04
Full Text of Decision A-0341.04
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
antedate |
ignorance of the law |
good faith |
|
Summary:
The Court reiterated that it is well established in case law (Smith, Rouleau, Shebid) that good faith and ignorance of the law are not valid grounds in an Application to Antedate.
Decision 56783
Full Text of Decision 56783
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
antedate |
ignorance of the law |
good faith |
|
Summary:
Claimant lost her employment on Jan. 31, 2002 but delayed filing her claim until June 24, 2002. She explained that she was actively seeking employment and lived on her savings. She submits that she should not be penalized for her efforts in trying to find employment instead of applying for benefits. Argument summarily dismissed both by BOR and Umpire. Reference made to the FCA decision in Smith (A-0549.92).
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
antedate |
ignorance of the law |
duty to enquire |
|
Decision 55325
Full Text of Decision 55325
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
antedate |
ignorance of the law |
good faith |
|
Summary:
Claimant delayed filing her claim for 11 weeks stating that she was not aware that she was eligible for benefits: her delay was out of pure innocence and this was a totally honest mistake. Relying on the FCA decision in Larouche (A-0644.93), Umpire held that the claimant had not acted as a reasonable and prudent person and that she should have communicated with the Commission to ascertain whether she might qualify for benefits.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
antedate |
ignorance of the law |
duty to enquire |
|
antedate |
ignorance of the law |
misinterpretation |
|
Decision 52548
Full Text of Decision 52548
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
antedate |
ignorance of the law |
good faith |
|
Summary:
Claimant alleged that, as an immigrant, he was not aware that there was an Employment Insurance Act, given that no legislation of this kind existed in his country of origin. BOR took into account the claimant's level of education (doctorate) and his numerous contacts with senior officials in Canada to conclude that ignorance of the legislation alone cannot constitute good cause. Decision upheld by the Umpire.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
antedate |
ignorance of the law |
foreigners |
|
antedate |
ignorance of the law |
duty to enquire |
|
Decision 39888
Full Text of Decision 39888
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
antedate |
ignorance of the law |
good faith |
|
Summary:
Delay in filing on the premise that benefits would not be paid until severance and vacation money had run out may have been done in good faith but is not good cause for one's failure to immediately upon leaving work to verify and apply for benefits.
Decision 31558A
Full Text of Decision 31558A
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
antedate |
ignorance of the law |
good faith |
|
Summary:
A reasonable person would have acted much earlier to discover his rights and obligations. The beneficiary's complete lack of action is not justifiable. A number of FCA cases were cited: Larouche (A-644-93), Albrecht (A-172-85), Pirotte (A-108-76), Caron (A-395-85) and Smith (A-549-92).
Decision A-0004.95
Full Text of Decision A-0004.95
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
antedate |
ignorance of the law |
good faith |
|
Summary:
It has been established in this Court that good faith and ignorance of the law do not in themselves constitute a valid reason for justification, but it has also been established that they do not exclude the existence of a valid reason if the claimant demonstrates that he acted as a reasonable person.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
antedate |
good cause |
special benefits |
|
antedate |
ignorance of the law |
duty to enquire |
|
Decision A-0185.94
Full Text of Decision A-0185.94
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
antedate |
ignorance of the law |
good faith |
|
Summary:
The second error is that the alleged new facts are not facts which could have constituted "good cause for delay". As was recently stated by this Court in LAROUCHE, good faith and ignorance of the law are not by themselves a valid excuse for not having complied with legal provisions.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
antedate |
ignorance of the law |
not an excuse |
|
reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
definition |
|
umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Decision A-0644.93
Full Text of Decision A-0644.93
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
antedate |
ignorance of the law |
good faith |
|
Summary:
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.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
antedate |
good cause |
test to apply |
|
antedate |
disentitlement period at issue |
courses |
|
antedate |
ignorance of the law |
not an excuse |
|
Decision 21456
Full Text of Decision 21456
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
antedate |
ignorance of the law |
good faith |
|
Summary:
The Board decided that ignorance of the law together with the good faith of the beneficiary were the sufficient justification required by para. 9(4). That is quite contrary to the principles in CARON T. The Board thus erred in law.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
errors in law |
not applying jurisprudence |
|
Decision 13465
Full Text of Decision 13465
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
antedate |
ignorance of the law |
good faith |
|
Summary:
Did not know that he would have been entitled after working 10 weeks. Ignorance and good faith not sufficient: "Claimant did nothing to obtain information". 3 1/2 months in issue.
Decision A-0395.85
Full Text of Decision A-0395.85
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
antedate |
ignorance of the law |
good faith |
|
Summary:
Registered with employment agencies and believed she would get work any day. 14 month delay. Error as to her situation and her rights combined with good faith not sufficient. This was precisely the issue that PIROTTE and ALBRECHT addressed.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
antedate |
very exceptional circumstances |
|
|
antedate |
ignorance of the law |
not an excuse |
|
antedate |
waiting for job |
searching for work |
|
antedate |
ignorance of the law |
duty to enquire |
|
antedate |
good cause |
test to apply |
|
Decision 11170
Full Text of Decision 11170
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
antedate |
ignorance of the law |
good faith |
|
Summary:
Parliament never intended that an insured person's apathy and carelessness could be used to absolve him, just as good faith and ignorance are not good cause.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
antedate |
conscious choice |
negligence |
|
Decision 10873
Full Text of Decision 10873
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
antedate |
ignorance of the law |
good faith |
|
Summary:
It was pointed out that insured was sincere and honest and believed firmly that his lack of knowledge of Act should not be held against him. I am certain that he was sincere and well-intentioned but this is of no importance under 9(4). [p. 8]