Summary Search Results...


Decision A0562.12 Full Text of Decision A0562.12

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
antedate misinformation from Commission
Summary:

The claimant was finished to work on August 13, 2010. He applied for benefits on April 27, 2011. On July 25, 2011, the claimant requested that the Commission antedate his claim to August 26, 2010. The claimant alleged that his delay in applying for benefits was because a Service Canada representative had told him that his ROE included some mistakes and that he had to submit a new ROE. The claimant also alleged that the Service Canada representative had not instructed him to apply for benefits immediately. The Commission denied the antedate because he had not shown good cause for his delay. The FCA found that it was open to the BOR to determine that the reasons given by the claimant for his delay in applying for benefits did not constitute good cause, and that the Umpire’s conclusion to uphold the BOR’s decision was reasonable.


Decision 63491 Full Text of Decision 63491

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
antedate misinformation from Commission
Summary:

The claimant had not filed his report cards because he had been repeatedly told by the Commission that he did not qualify. He did not enquire further until his banker suggested that he should do so. The Umpire stated that reliance by the claimant on information provided by the Commission can constitute good cause for a delay in applying for benefits.


Decision A-0205.96 Full Text of Decision A-0205.96

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
antedate misinformation from Commission
Summary:

Claimant discharged 27-4-93 and filed on 22-3-94. Reasons for delaying: 1) he had filed a grievance which eventually was arbitrated and 2) he was told by a Commission employee that he would not be eligible to receive benefits because he had been dismissed from his job for cause. Quoting Albrecht (A-172-85), the umpire held that the claimant had not done what a reasonable person in his situation would have done to satisfy himself as to his rights and obligations under the Act. The FCA was of the view that the umpire had properly applied the legal test and dimissed the claimant's application for judicial review.

Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
antedate waiting for grievance settlement or judgment

Decision A-0690.94 Full Text of Decision A-0690.94

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
antedate misinformation from Commission
Summary:

On unpaid leave from June 89 to September 90. The fact that the respondent may have obtained false information from the Commission in May 1990 cannot help her case since it would not justify the delay prior to receiving this inaccurate information.

Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
antedate ignorance of the law misinterpretation
antedate ignorance of the law not an excuse

Decision 27377 Full Text of Decision 27377

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
antedate misinformation from Commission
Summary:

If a claimant is to make out a case based upon representations made by a representative of the CEIC, the onus is on the claimant to provide specific and detailed information so that the CEIC has an opportunity to investigate the matter. Vague references to a conversation are insufficient.


Decision 26524 Full Text of Decision 26524

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
antedate misinformation from Commission
Summary:

The claimant acted like a reasonable person. After obtaining unpaid leave, she inquired with the Commission as to her rights and obligations. The fact she received erroneous information from the Commission is good cause for her delay.


Decision 20780 Full Text of Decision 20780

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
antedate misinformation from Commission
Summary:

Earnings allocated until 20-6-90. Notice states "When this situation ends you may apply again". It is incomprehensible why one is not advised that there might be some time limit as to when to apply if he wanted to obtain maximum benefit. The situation should have been explained.

Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees hearings tape-recording

Decision 20048 Full Text of Decision 20048

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
antedate misinformation from Commission
Summary:

In a case such as this, where the officer in question can be readily identified, it is not sufficient for the CEIC to support its case with the kind of third hand information that was put before the Board in this case on a critical point as to whether claimant had been misled. It has been held that incorrect advice from a CEIC agent may well provide good cause if it was reasonable for claimant to believe the CEIC officer. Very important therefore that Boards pay very close attention to the nature of proof submitted concerningstatements by officers.


Decision 19677 Full Text of Decision 19677

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
antedate misinformation from Commission
Summary:

Claimant's delay in filing her report card was with good cause. She acted reasonably by relying on a CEIC brochure according to which delay in filing report cards would result in delay of payment, nothing being said about possible denial of payment.


Decision 18145 Full Text of Decision 18145

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
antedate misinformation from Commission
Summary:

I should also find that the information communicated to the claimant by Commission staff is sufficiently plausible as to create a reasonable opinion that the information was true, even though the claimant might not have completely understood what was said to her.

Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
antedate rationale
board of referees errors in law decision incomplete various
board of referees statement of facts as a requirement

Decision 16275 Full Text of Decision 16275

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
antedate misinformation from Commission
Summary:

Temporary teacher; did not file in summer; returned to work in Sept. Claim filed a year later. ALBRECHT quoted. No reasonable person would have, after being told on 3 occasions by employer and one confirmed by CEIC she is not eligible, thought of requesting further clarification.


Decision 12387A Full Text of Decision 12387A

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
antedate misinformation from Commission
Summary:

The case is one of genuine ignorance after having made reasonable enquiries. Claimant made enquiries of the CEIC but was not advised he could file a claim. He did all that a reasonable person could have done to satisfy himself as to his rights and obligations.


Decision 14813 Full Text of Decision 14813

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
antedate misinformation from Commission
Summary:

I have no doubt that claimant's evidence is credible, that he phoned the Commission seeking information and the response he got led him to believe that he was ineligible. Not familiar with the system. Had paid premiums for 25 years. [p._4]

Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees constitution of board member ineligible
board of referees statement of facts as a requirement

Decision 14746 Full Text of Decision 14746

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
antedate misinformation from Commission
Summary:

Claim not filed 2 years ago when told over the phone that she was not entitled to UI, being self-employed. Not able to say who she spoke to. Entitlement could only have been determined if she had filed. CUB 11000 applies. Acted reasonably. Allowed subject to self-employment.


Decision 14717 Full Text of Decision 14717

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
antedate misinformation from Commission
Summary:

The Board reports that claimant checked with the Student Employment Centre and was not informed of her rights. In this specific case, the Government system put in place failed to assist the students and this led her astray. She behaved like a reasonableperson.


Decision 12950 Full Text of Decision 12950

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
antedate misinformation from Commission
Summary:

He was told by the Commission that he would not be eligible. I believe in this evidence. Retired after 26 years. He had reason to believe in what he was told. No reason to question the correctness of the information. Delay of 17 months.


Decision 12839 Full Text of Decision 12839

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
antedate misinformation from Commission
Summary:

The misinformation came from the CEIC itself and not from a third party. This situation can certainly be regarded as good cause since the cause itself is imputable to the CEIC's inefficiency rather than to claimant's negligence. He should not have to bear the CEIC's blunder.

Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
antedate waiting for job searching for work

Decision 11735 Full Text of Decision 11735

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
antedate misinformation from Commission
Summary:

If the Board finds as a fact that claimant called the Commission's offices in 10-84 and received misadvice, it is open to the Board to find that she had good cause for delay.


Decision A-1498.84 Full Text of Decision A-1498.84

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
antedate misinformation from Commission
Summary:

CUB 6642 referred to by Umpire in which it was held that the fact that the Commission wrongly advised a claimant does not relieve him from complying with s.9(4) [p. 6]. No valid reason for Board to ignore claimant's sworn declaration. Error in law.

Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees weight of statements under oath
antedate misinformation from Commission credibility
board of referees errors in law burden of proof

Decision 11654 Full Text of Decision 11654

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
antedate misinformation from Commission
Summary:

Misinformation may enlarge a claimant's rights which might otherwise be lost, for example good cause for antedating. The Act of the Commission's employees does not change the law but only allows to come within it. It does not create a right which does not otherwise exist.

Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
reconsideration of claim errors by Commission not a ground of entitlement

Decision 11579 Full Text of Decision 11579

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
antedate misinformation from Commission
Summary:

Burden of proof is on claimant to prove error by CEIC. After hearing parties, board concluded he had not discharged burden. Not for me to substitute my opinion.

Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
basic concepts rate of unemployment

Decision 11486 Full Text of Decision 11486

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
antedate misinformation from Commission
Summary:

Interpretation offered by UI staff entirely consistent with jurisprudence at that time [4 years earlier]. That jurisprudence was given a fresh interpretation in ABRAHAMS [labour dispute]. Claimants acted reasonably, so did the Commission. The result is that they did not file.


Decision 11451 Full Text of Decision 11451

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
antedate misinformation from Commission
Summary:

Claimant remembered and was able to identify the Commission officer but the latter did not remember any conversation. The Board found that there may have been some misunderstanding. Being misinformed by an employee of the Commission is surely good causefor delay.

Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees weight of statements contradictory

Decision 11271 Full Text of Decision 11271

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
antedate misinformation from Commission
Summary:

Upon completing his course, claimant sought advice from the Commission. He was told to let his benefit period run and after that file a new initial. He had better terminate since not enough weeks for initial. Did what a reasonable person would have doneto enquire.


Decision 11048 Full Text of Decision 11048

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
antedate misinformation from Commission
Summary:

Delay of 17 months. The Board notes that claimant did not attend at the UIC office but merely made 2 phone calls and was informed that he was not eligible. ALBRECHT is of no help. A reasonable person would not be satisfied with phone calls, plenty of time to attend and enquire.


Decision 10788 Full Text of Decision 10788

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
antedate misinformation from Commission
Summary:

Claim filed 10-2-84. Timely enquiry made in 12-83 and misinformed by Commission as well by employer. Quite able to show that she did what a reasonable person would have done to satisfy herself as to her rights and obligations. [p. 6-7]


Decision 10629 Full Text of Decision 10629

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
antedate misinformation from Commission
Summary:

PIROTTE considered. In order for misinformation to be good cause, insured must establish precise nature of information requested from an official with authority to answer, not from a receptionist.


Decision 37589 Full Text of Decision 37589

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
antedate misinformation from Commission credibility
Summary:

Claimant who has taken all reasonable steps to apprise himself of his eligibility, will be seen to have established "good cause" for delay, where his failure to apply for benefits sooner is the direct result of Commission failure to provide conditions for antedate.


Decision 15845 Full Text of Decision 15845

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
antedate misinformation from Commission credibility
Summary:

The insured claims to have filed a claim 1 1/2 year earlier and was told he was not eligible. Does not remember why or the name of the person who told him this. The Board agreed with him. The judge refuses to intervene, stating this is a matter of credibility.


Decision A-1498.84 Full Text of Decision A-1498.84

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
antedate misinformation from Commission credibility
Summary:

The Board did not accept his testimony. It did have grounds for such disbelief. Claimant at no time went back to office to identify such clerk and thereby give Commission the opportunity of questioning her [p. 4] said Umpire. No valid reason for Board to ignore sworn declaration.

Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
antedate misinformation from Commission
board of referees weight of statements under oath
board of referees errors in law burden of proof

Decision 11355 Full Text of Decision 11355

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
antedate misinformation from Commission credibility
Summary:

Part of the evidence was the oral testimony of claimant taken by the Board under the sanctity of oath. Under the circumstances, it is not enough for the Commission to blithely assert that the Board's finding was based on credibility.

Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees weight of statements under oath
Date modified: