| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
very exceptional circumstances |
|
|
Summary:
There could be cases in which inaction and submissiveness would be understandable regardless, but the circumstances would have to be very exceptional, and I do not think that such inaction could remain understandable when it has lasted for over 14 months as here.
| 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.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
ignorance of the law |
not an excuse |
|
Summary:
The chief concern of the Court in ALBRECHT was to reject the line of thinking which seemed to be gaining increasing acceptance that ignorance of the law precluded any possibility of good cause unless it resulted from some wrongful act by the Commission itself.
To say that ignorance excludes good cause is contrary to the whole spirit of the Act since in all cases of delay there is inevitably some measure of ignorance. However, that Court in ALBRECHT restated its agreement with PIROTTE that ignorance by itself is not enough.
| 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.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
ignorance of the law |
duty to enquire |
|
Summary:
Insured must demonstrate that he did what a reasonable and prudent person would have done in same circumstances, either to clarify his situation in relation to his employment or to inquire about his rights and obligations.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
good cause |
test to apply |
|
Summary:
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.
