Decision A0548.12
Full Text of Decision A0548.12
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
ignorance of the law |
duty to enquire |
|
Summary:
The claimant had surgery in 2009 and claimed EI sickness benefits during her medical leave from work. She was scheduled to return to work in September 2009. However, her employer delayed her return to work date to February 2010. She did not submit an application for regular benefits for that period until January 20, 2012. She requested that her claim be antedated to September 2009. In her request for an antedate, she explained that she did not know that she may have been entitled to receive regular benefits when she did not return to work in September 2009 and that she did not think that she would have enough hours of insurable employment to qualify for benefits. The Commission denied the claimant’s antedate request. The FCA supported the conclusion that she had not established good cause for delay.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
waiting for job |
existing opportunity |
|
Decision A0154.11
Full Text of Decision A0154.11
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
ignorance of the law |
duty to enquire |
|
Summary:
The claimant quit his employment on October 5, 2007, to move with his spouse to a new city. Based on information that he obtained from the Service Canada (SC) website, the claimant understood that he could not qualify for EI benefits because he quit his job. On September 14, 2009, he applied for regular EI benefits. The claimant asked that his claim be antedated to October 5, 2007. The Commission determined that he did not have good cause for the delay in applying for EI benefits. The FCA upheld the Umpire’s decision, finding that the SC website cannot be relied on solely as an authority. The FCA held that it is incumbent upon a reasonable person to inquire with the Commission to determine what his or her rights and obligations are in the circumstances or to make an application and allow the Commission to make a determination of one’s eligibility.
Decision 76670
Full Text of Decision 76670
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
ignorance of the law |
duty to enquire |
|
Summary:
The claimant filed an initial EI benefit claim that took effect on April 4, 2010. She worked at the Auberge from November 18, 2008 to August 10, 2009. Her employment ended because the company closed. The claimant requested the Commission to antedate her claim to August 9, 2009 as she thought that she needed to have worked for a full year at the same company. The Commission determined that the claimant failed to prove that she had good cause for her delay in filing her claim and denied her request. In fact, the claimant did not file her claim until 34 weeks after the end of her employment. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed by the Umpire.
Decision A0105.10
Full Text of Decision A0105.10
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
ignorance of the law |
duty to enquire |
|
Summary:
The claimant applied for benefits explaining her delay in applying by indicating that she had returned to school. In her Notice of Appeal, the Claimant indicated that she did not realize she should have applied for benefits immediately after her last day of work, and that she had been given the wrong information. The Commission denied her request for an antedate. The FCA found that barring exceptional circumstances, a prospective claimant in the respondent's position is expected to take reasonably prompt steps to understand her obligations under the Act. As the claimant did not take reasonably prompt steps to understand her obligations under the Act, the Umpire's decision was unreasonable.
Decision A0093.09
Full Text of Decision A0093.09
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
ignorance of the law |
duty to enquire |
|
Summary:
The claimant took ill on a flight to the Middle East in November 2007, was hospitalized outside Canada and returned to Canada in March 2008. She reported to work in March 2008, and eventually filed a claim for benefits in May 2008, requesting that it be antedated to November 2007. The BOR correctly found that the only reason for the delay in making the claim between March and May 2008 was the claimant's unawareness of her right to do so and her failure to acquaint herself of her rights. The Umpire adopted the factual findings of the BOR but found that «special circumstances» justified granting the appeal. The FCA ruled that the Umpire erred in law by substituting his view of the facts for that of the BOR, when the BOR's appreciation of the facts was reasonable.
Decision A0232.08
Full Text of Decision A0232.08
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
ignorance of the law |
duty to enquire |
|
Summary:
In accordance with the Judgment and Reasons for Judgment rendered by the FCA, the Umpire's decision dated April 14, 2008 is set aside. The claimant has failed to show good cause for the period of his delay in filing his report cards as required by subsection 10(5) of the EIA. Accordingly, his request for an antedate must be denied.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| claim procedure |
returning report cards |
duty of claimant |
|
Decision A0403.07
Full Text of Decision A0403.07
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
ignorance of the law |
duty to enquire |
|
Summary:
The Board found that the claimant's failure to claim benefits immediately upon her eligibility was the result of her ignorance of the law. If, as the claimant said she did not claim the benefits while she was a sponsor student because she was afraid that it could be seen as an abuse (as she was receiving assistance throuth a First Nation Education Authority), she then had at the time even more reasons for inquiring about her status, rights and obligations under the Act. A reasonable person would have so enquired. The Court relied on its recent decisions in A-481-07(Brace) and A-341-04 (Beaudin).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
Unavailability of Transcript |
|
Decision 56783
Full Text of Decision 56783
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
ignorance of the law |
duty to enquire |
|
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 |
good faith |
|
Decision 55325
Full Text of Decision 55325
summary
| 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.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
ignorance of the law |
good faith |
|
| 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 |
duty to enquire |
|
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 |
good faith |
|
Decision 51720
Full Text of Decision 51720
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
ignorance of the law |
duty to enquire |
|
Summary:
Claimant delayed filing his application for six (6) months and explained that he was job seeking and waiting for his record of employment (ROE). Held by Umpire that claimant made no attempt to determine, by inquiry, his rights and obligations and no request to obtain his ROE. No evidence to show that claimant was somehow prevented or incapable of filing a timely application.
Decision 46459
Full Text of Decision 46459
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
ignorance of the law |
duty to enquire |
|
Summary:
Claimant received his full salary from March 1997 to March 1998 after his separation, but only filed a benefit claim on 12-08-98. One might come to the conclusion that for the period of one year during which he was receiving his full salary, the claimant might have thought he was not entitled to any benefits. However, after his return to Quebec in May 1998, he did not have any valid reason for not inquiring with Employment Insurance.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
applicability |
good cause for part period |
|
Decision 43873
Full Text of Decision 43873
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
ignorance of the law |
duty to enquire |
|
Summary:
Claimant waited 3 years to file application for EI. Claimed that she was advised by her divorce lawyer and the agent of "Les Normes du Travail" not to file until the divorce proceeding was complete. Referring to FCA in Larouche (A-0644.93) and Albrecht (A-0172.85), umpire found that good cause had not been shown for a 3-year delay. Appeal denied.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
misinformation from third party |
|
|
Decision 41494
Full Text of Decision 41494
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
ignorance of the law |
duty to enquire |
|
Summary:
Claimant alleged that he did not know how the system worked and did not think he could claim benefits until his separation pay, equivalent to 62 weeks of salary, had run out. The case law has repeatedly held that claimants cannot plead ignorance of the law as a good cause for a delay in making a claim if they did nothing to overcome that ignorance by informing themselves of their rights.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
ignorance of the law |
not an excuse |
|
Decision 40272
Full Text of Decision 40272
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
ignorance of the law |
duty to enquire |
|
Summary:
Clmt first used the money she had put aside in hope of finding a job before applying for benefits. Umpire ruled that clmt did not do what a reasonable person in her circumstances would have done to ascertain her rights and responsibilities in applying for benefits.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
waiting for job |
searching for work |
|
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 |
duty to enquire |
|
Summary:
Retired at age 65. Satisfied with a rumour that he did not verify with a responsible source, and without taking any steps whatsoever, erroneously believed that he was ineligible for benefits. There is no doubt that a reasonable person would have done more.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
good cause |
special benefits |
|
| antedate |
ignorance of the law |
good faith |
|
Decision 26873
Full Text of Decision 26873
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
ignorance of the law |
duty to enquire |
|
Summary:
Unfortunately, claimant did not think to telephone the Commission to make enquiries. She chose instead to rely on the claim procedures she recalled from another time. Given the rate at which legislation changes, it would have been reasonable for her to make enquiries about current procedures.
Decision 25743
Full Text of Decision 25743
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
ignorance of the law |
duty to enquire |
|
Summary:
Teacher who worked from 9-91 to 26-6-92 and then from from 1-9-92. Applied in 1-93. Not advised by employer that she was entitled to UI for 7-92 and 8-92 and did not receive ROE until she requested one in 12-92. Solely responsible for her neglect. She never inquired as to her rights.
Decision 25511
Full Text of Decision 25511
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
ignorance of the law |
duty to enquire |
|
Summary:
Did not know she could claim for unpaid holidays during school year. She alleges that the Commission had a duty to inform her of her rights. However, as a citizen seeking a benefit, she also had a duty to make enquiries. Total unfamiliarity with the law does not justify a delay in filing.
Decision 19789
Full Text of Decision 19789
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
ignorance of the law |
duty to enquire |
|
Summary:
The evidence simply does not show that she took any steps to apprise herself of her rights and responsibilities under the Act by contacting the Commission and confirming her assumption that she was not entitled to UI. The obligation to make these inquiries rested solely with her.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
waiting for record of employment |
|
|
Decision 19774
Full Text of Decision 19774
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
ignorance of the law |
duty to enquire |
|
Summary:
A reasonable claimant should take certain steps to determine whether he qualifies for UI. He should not rely on his own assumptions without contacting the CEIC. Here, claimant did not take any steps through CEIC or Union except for drawing his own conclusions from the pamphlets.
Decision 18207
Full Text of Decision 18207
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
ignorance of the law |
duty to enquire |
|
Summary:
The test in ALBRECHT is whether the claimant acted as a reasonable and prudent person to satisfy herself of her obligations. Simple lack of knowledge of the rules, without inquiring from the Commission as to one's rights, is not the action of a reasonable and prudent person.
Decision 17192
Full Text of Decision 17192
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
ignorance of the law |
duty to enquire |
|
Summary:
If a claimant has other valid reasons which may happen to include ignorance of his entitlement to benefits, he will still enjoy the benefit of antedating so long as he can demonstrate that he has acted in a reasonable manner to satisfy himself as to hisrights and obligations.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
ignorance of the law |
not an excuse |
|
Decision 15269
Full Text of Decision 15269
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
ignorance of the law |
duty to enquire |
|
Summary:
As per ALBRECHT, claimant must show he did what a reasonable person would have done. The obligation of a claimant who finds himself unemployed is to enquire at the offices of the Commission to ascertain his rights and obligations under the Act.
Decision 13494
Full Text of Decision 13494
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
ignorance of the law |
duty to enquire |
|
Summary:
Not aware he may be entitled to benefits while sick. It was incumbent on him to make enquiries. Claimants should refrain from acting on their own assumptions without first contacting the Commission to verify the accuracy of those assumptions.
Decision 11844A
Full Text of Decision 11844A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
ignorance of the law |
duty to enquire |
|
Summary:
ALBRECHT quoted. There is no evidence that claimant took any steps to apprise herself of her rights. Claimants should refrain from acting on their own ill-founded assumptions [that ROE was required] without contacting the Commission.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
waiting for record of employment |
|
|
Decision 12818
Full Text of Decision 12818
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
ignorance of the law |
duty to enquire |
|
Summary:
A reasonably prudent person does not rely solely upon his own unfounded and blind assumptions. A reasonable man would have sought to apprise himself of his rights and obligations by calling the CEIC to make enquiries. [p. 4-5]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
rationale |
|
|
Decision 11578
Full Text of Decision 11578
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
ignorance of the law |
duty to enquire |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0052.86
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
right of appeal |
applicable delays |
|
Decision A-0052.86
Full Text of Decision A-0052.86
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
ignorance of the law |
duty to enquire |
|
Summary:
The Umpire stated that, contrary to ALBRECHT, claimant made no effort to do what a reasonable person would do, namely contact the CEIC to find out if he qualified. ALBRECHT properly applied by Umpire to the factual situation.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
right of appeal |
applicable delays |
|
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 |
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.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
very exceptional circumstances |
|
|
| antedate |
ignorance of the law |
good faith |
|
| antedate |
ignorance of the law |
not an excuse |
|
| antedate |
waiting for job |
searching for work |
|
| antedate |
good cause |
test to apply |
|
Decision A-0172.85
Full Text of Decision A-0172.85
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
ignorance of the law |
duty to enquire |
|
Summary:
It is correct to say that it is to claimant's conduct that the requirement is directed. There is an obligation which imports a duty of care required of a claimant. That duty must be seen as very demanding and strict, but only to a point at which it becomes unreasonable.
