Summary Search Results...


Decision 74155 Full Text of Decision 74155

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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Decision 11103 Full Text of Decision 11103

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

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

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

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

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

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 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

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 Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
antedate rationale
antedate ignorance of the law not an excuse
Date modified: