| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
ignorance of the law |
duty to enquire |
|
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.
| 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.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
ignorance of the law |
misinterpretation |
|
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.
