Decision 74155
Full Text of Decision 74155
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
misinformation from third party |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant was laid off. Her last day of work was June 1, 2007. On the advice of her employer, she did not apply immediately for benefits because of a promise of assistance. When she applied in November of the same year, her file was activated, but was left with benefit entitlement which failed to meet her expectations; for only 21 weeks in lieu of the full qualifying number of weeks. The appeal by the claimant was dismissed.
Decision 53568
Full Text of Decision 53568
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
misinformation from third party |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant delayed filing his application for benefits for over 4 years. He stated that he relied on the advice of his legal counsel who advised him not to file a claim for benefits, while the litigation with his former employer was in progress. Referring to the FCA decision in Ehman (A-0360.95), the Umpire held that the test is to demonstrate what a reasonable and prudent person would do and that the claimant failed to demonstrate adherence thereto. Reliance on the advice of his lawyer will not be accepted as "good cause" to explain the delay.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
waiting for grievance settlement or judgment |
|
|
| antedate |
conscious choice |
preoccupation |
|
Decision 43873
Full Text of Decision 43873
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
misinformation from third party |
|
|
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 |
ignorance of the law |
duty to enquire |
|
Decision 35066
Full Text of Decision 35066
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
misinformation from third party |
|
|
Summary:
Request for a 40 week antedate. Claimant under the false impression from the WCB that she need not seek benefits elsewhere pending her appeal to WCB. Applied immediately when advised by union representative to seek U.I. Claimant did what a reasonable person would have done in her situation.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
applicability |
length of delay |
|
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
not a trial de novo |
|
Decision A-0360.95
Full Text of Decision A-0360.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
misinformation from third party |
|
|
Summary:
Following legal advice, claimant suspended her claim until settlement by the Court concerning child maintenance payments. Held by the FCA that provisions of the Act cannot be used in such a way as to permit claimants to avoid the intended effects of a valid court order. Lawyer's advice is irrelevant
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
waiting for grievance settlement or judgment |
|
|
| antedate |
conscious choice |
preoccupation |
|
Decision 28163
Full Text of Decision 28163
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
misinformation from third party |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant's father had told him that he was not entitled to UI while a student. ALBRECHT and others examined; acted in a reasonnable manner. For a 19 year old young man, the fact he asked his father's opinion and followed it, shows balanced judgment, even if his father was not legally qualified.
Decision 28058
Full Text of Decision 28058
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
misinformation from third party |
|
|
Summary:
The majority of the Board was entitled to conclude as it did. The claimant was told by the Pay and Benefits staff of his employer that he was ineligible for benefits; that is, by persons whom he reasonably expected to be relatively informed of such matters.
Decision 25130
Full Text of Decision 25130
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
misinformation from third party |
|
|
Summary:
Had he received information firsthand from a third party, i.e. from the union steward and not his boss/lead hand, there would be more reasons to claim he had good cause. The most telling matter against his position is the fact that he at no time got in touch with the Commission.
Decision 22269
Full Text of Decision 22269
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
misinformation from third party |
|
|
Summary:
She conceded that her knowledge about the Act came from a secretary in the office. She never made enquiries of the Commission. Also, she knew UI premiums were being deducted from her commission cheques. A reasonable person would likely have asked: "If Ican't collect UI, why am I paying premiums?"
Decision 18335
Full Text of Decision 18335
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
misinformation from third party |
|
|
Summary:
Misinformation from an employer has been held, in CUB 10025, to be good cause where it was reasonable to rely on it, from a career counsellor. The Board found that it was unreasonable to rely on advice from a payroll clerk rather than contact the CEIC and I am inclined to agree.
Decision 16773
Full Text of Decision 16773
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
misinformation from third party |
|
|
Summary:
There is ample jurisprudence establishing that when a claimant relies on the advice of someone from whom he or she is entitled to anticipate that accurate advice will be received that that individual has good cause. In this case the advice was received from claimant's union.
Decision 11929A
Full Text of Decision 11929A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
misinformation from third party |
|
|
Summary:
Delay of more than 2 years. The Board found he was under the direction of his first legal counsel not to claim. Counsel was a person the claimant had every reason to believe he was knowledgeable on the subject.
Decision 12698
Full Text of Decision 12698
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
misinformation from third party |
|
|
Summary:
A person in the claimant's position [poor health], having been advised by the personnel department that she was not eligible for UI and that she did not require her ROE, did what a reasonable person would have done by relying on that information. Delay of 4 months.
Decision 11230A
Full Text of Decision 11230A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
misinformation from third party |
|
|
Summary:
Delay of 2 weeks. Claimant prepared to forego benefits for a few days if weather permitted work to re-commence. Not unreasonable to heed the request of his boss not to start his claim. Ignorance not fatal to his claim as per ALBRECHT.
Decision 11360
Full Text of Decision 11360
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
misinformation from third party |
|
|
Summary:
There has been a distinction drawn between cases in which claimant is under a false impression regarding procedure and those in which claimant has been misled by a third party upon whose advice a reasonable person would have relied.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
waiting for record of employment |
|
|
Decision 11103
Full Text of Decision 11103
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
misinformation from third party |
|
|
Summary:
A third party of experience and knowledge may give advice which it would be reasonable to accept. But when one replies that he does not understand the matter any better than claimant, the only reasonable course is to seek advice from another source.
Decision 10869
Full Text of Decision 10869
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
misinformation from third party |
|
|
Summary:
Quotes ALBRECHT. Even reliance on a 3rd person who it would be reasonable to rely on could constitute good cause, i.e. his physician here, but not in these circumstances, due to the lengthy delay. Additional delay without good cause caused by visit to India.
Decision 10814
Full Text of Decision 10814
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
misinformation from third party |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant involved in accident in 3-81. Misinformed by lawyer that 3rd party being responsible for accident would pay all of her lost wages and she should not file for UI sickness benefits. Regrettable that this is not good cause for an antedate exceeding 3 years.
Decision 10813
Full Text of Decision 10813
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
misinformation from third party |
|
|
Summary:
The solicitor gave claimant written advice leading him to believe he could apply for UI at any time with only a 2-week waiting period. He applied upon receiving ROE. Antedate allowed by Board. The Board's decision conforms to the test in ALBRECHT.
Decision 09588
Full Text of Decision 09588
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
misinformation from third party |
|
|
Summary:
His explanation that he had put the matter in the hands of a lawyer is not good cause. If one chooses to delegate responsibility for taking action, and chooses to leave all action up to that person, he is bound by the action taken by his delegate.
Decision A-1261.83
Full Text of Decision A-1261.83
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
misinformation from third party |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant ceased work in 9-80 and continued to receive monthly salary until 4-81. He learned later this was a retiring allowance and not earnings. Ignorance or mistake induced by employer's representations is not good cause as per PIROTTE.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
ignorance of the law |
not an excuse |
|
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
| antedate |
disentitlement period at issue |
earnings |
|
Decision A-0108.76
Full Text of Decision A-0108.76
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
misinformation from third party |
|
|
Summary:
Insured knew she was entitled to claim benefit but not how to do so. Sought information from employer who misled her. Error of law, regardless of the cause, unless caused by the CEIC, is not a reason to justify delay.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
rationale |
|
|
| antedate |
ignorance of the law |
not an excuse |
|
