| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
rationale |
|
|
Summary:
The public interest must always be looked at in light of the prejudice that a particular delay could cause. Antedating may often give too much freedom to the claimant, entitling him to benefits retroactively without taking into consideration the usual requirements. Quashed in F.C.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
good cause |
special benefits |
|
Summary:
In the case of sickness or maternity benefits, the prejudice to the proper functioning of the system is relatively inexistent. proof of the patient's pathology, or pregnancy, can be easily determined. Good cause could be given a more liberal interpretation. Quashed in F.C.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
good cause |
test to apply |
|
Summary:
We can not conceive that the additional evidence obtained by the Board could have shown that the claimant, while delaying to file his claim, has acted as a prudent and reasonable person during the whole period. Thus, error in law on the part of the Board.
