Summary of Issue: Special Reasons

Decision 65773 Full Text of Decision 65773

The claimant maintains that he did not file his appeal sooner because he had obtained employment. However, the jurisprudence has consistently held that this does not constitute a special reason for a delay as contemplated by section 116 of the Act.

Decision 65403 Full Text of Decision 65403

The claimant, who was living in Argentina when his appeal was proceeding, had appointed his father to represent him. His father did not inform him of the outcome of his appeal, not wanting to worry him. It was not until three years later that the claimant became aware of this and he then filed his appeal to the Umpire. The Umpire stated that the claimant's father was advised of the proper procedure for appealing to an Umpire and the time limitations thereof. He found it was incumbent upon the father to act in a timely manner on the claimant's behalf in order to protect his rights of appeal under the legislation.

Decision 64757 Full Text of Decision 64757

Claimant did not appeal for nine months after receiving the Board of Referees' decision. The Umpire stated that, although he maintains that the delay was the result of his working out of town, the onus was nevertheless on the claimant to act in a prompt and reasonable manner in order to protect his right of appeal under the legislation.

Decision 62994A Full Text of Decision 62994A

The Umpire noted that it was not until the Commission's Collection Unit continued to contact the claimant concerning repayment of the amount outstanding that he finally took action with respect to his appeal to the Umpire. The jurisprudence is clear that collection proceedings on the part of the Commission do not constitute special reasons for a delay as contemplated by section 116 of the Act.

Decision 52392 Full Text of Decision 52392

Becoming aware of a recent Umpire decision, claimant filed an appeal to the Umpire 3 years after receiving the BOR decision. Request denied. The onus is on claimants to act in a prompt and timely manner in order to protect their rights of appeal under the legislation. A change in jurisprudence has been consistently held not to constitute special reasons for a delay in filing an appeal.

Decision 43366 Full Text of Decision 43366

Claimant explained that he was filing a late appeal because he was having difficulty with his memory and had to be reminded to do things by his daughters and friends. Umpire concluded that in light of the short delay (one month) incurred and the medical condition of the claimant , an extension of the appeal period is justified.

Decision 41445 Full Text of Decision 41445

His reason for filing a late appeal is that he had undergone surgery and treatments for cancer. Umpire found that the claimant's explanation constituted a special reason warranting an extension of the appeal.

Decision A-0598.96 Full Text of Decision A-0598.96

Appeal was not filed on time because representative had made enquiries to the Commission regarding the possibility of reducing the amount claimant owed to the the Commission and that no answer was received before the expiry of the 60 days. Umpire found that he didn't show he had special reasons to justify extending the appeal period prescribed by the Act. FAC maintained the Umpire's decision.

Decision 38478 Full Text of Decision 38478

The employer claims to have been late in producing his notice of appeal because he was waiting for the Court's verdict with regard to the charges of theft laid against the claimant. J.A. dismissed the employer's appeal because, in his opinion, the employer was completely free to file the appeal within the time prescribed, while awaiting the Court's verdict.

Decision 38136 Full Text of Decision 38136

Appeal period over ten months. Issuance of new case law, after expiry of the time for appeal, which changes the interpretation of the statutory law is not a special reason for extending the appeal time limit.

Decision 37132 Full Text of Decision 37132

Claimant intended to appeal from the day he received the BOR's decision.Claimant delayed filing appeal awaiting advice of his M.P.. Acted immediately upon advice. Umpire is satisfied that the claimant acted in good faith and allowed the appeal.

Decision 36906 Full Text of Decision 36906

Delay of 112 days while await any results of Employment Standards. Claimant did not show he had special reasons justifying the delay for filing his appeal. The onus was on him to promptly enquire with the Commission concerning his rights and obligations with respect to appeal procedures.

Decision 36724 Full Text of Decision 36724

Appeal filed 8 months after BOR's decision. Stated that he didn't know that his appeal had to be filed within 60 days. He also submitted that new facts had come to light. Jurisprudence in all fields has maintained that subsequent revelation doesn't constitute grounds to reopen proceedings or extend time for filing late appeals.

Decision A-0478.96 Full Text of Decision A-0478.96

Appeal filed five months after the BOR decision. Claimant explained that he was seeking qualified counsel. Not reasonable ground according to the Umpire. A diligent claimant would have entered an appeal himself, within the normal time frame, and then tried to find counsel. Application for judicial review summarily dismissed by the FCA.

Decision 36134 Full Text of Decision 36134

Delay of 6 months to file her appeal. Explained that she had temporarily left the area for personal reasons shortly after receiving the BOR's decision. Held that no special reasons shown. Jurisprudence has established that being out of town is not an acceptable reason for delay since an appeal can be launched by mail.

Decision 25222A Full Text of Decision 25222A

Refer to: A-0245.95

Decision A-0245.95 Full Text of Decision A-0245.95

Four-year delay in appeal. Referring to the Federal Court of Appeal's decisions in Albrecht (A-172-85), Chartier (A-42-90) and Plourde (A-80-90), the referee was not convinced that the claimant acted as a reasonable person. FCA refused to intervene.

Decision 20793 Full Text of Decision 20793

Refer to: A-0373.92

Decision A-0373.92 Full Text of Decision A-0373.92

The Umpire refused to extend the time since the reason for delay (waiting to hear concerning representations made by M.P. to Minister) was not a proper and justifiable reason. Such a decision falls within the Umpire's discretion and can only be reversed where that discretion is exercised improperly.