Summary Search Results...


Decision A0548.12 Full Text of Decision A0548.12

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 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

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

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

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

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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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

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 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

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 Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
antedate misinformation from third party

Decision 41494 Full Text of Decision 41494

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 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

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 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

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 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

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

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

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

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 Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
antedate waiting for record of employment

Decision 19774 Full Text of Decision 19774

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

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

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 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

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

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

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 Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
antedate waiting for record of employment

Decision 12818 Full Text of Decision 12818

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 Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
antedate rationale

Decision 11578 Full Text of Decision 11578

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 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

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 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

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 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

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.

Date modified: