Delayed Appeal to Board of Referees
CUB 41107 - The jurisprudence does allow for an extension for humanitarian reasons or reasons beyond the claimant's control. Ignorance of the appeal process, forgetting or negligence do not constitute " special reasons" . The claimant explained that there had been a misunderstanding with his lawyer, as he wanted to appeal both decisions rendered by the Board-his representative only appealed one. The Umpire extended the appeal period.
Appellant: Stephane Roger
CUB 46116 - The appellant had moved to BC and had not left a forwarding address. Sometime in 1996 a Commission employee in the Dartmouth, Nova Scotia office contacted him about the penalty and overpayment. That employee told him to request transfer of his file to BC when he would be able to commence an appeal. There is nothing on the record to show when the " decisions" of the Commission were communicated to the claimant. Certainly there is no clear evidence about when the information about the availability of an appeal and the time limit therefore was communicated. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: John R. Goswell
CUB 47656 - The jurisprudence has established that " special reasons" for a delay in launching an appeal to the Umpire include compassionate reasons or circumstances which are beyond the claimant's control. In the present case, the claimant's reasons for the delay are two-fold. First, it was her impression upon reading the Board's decision that her appeal had been successful on both the issue of false and misleading statements and the issue of earnings. By the time she discovered that her appeal with respect to earnings had been dismissed, her husband had fallen seriously ill. These two factors together resulted in her appeal being launched outside the time period prescribed by the legislation. The Umpire was satisfied that the claimant's reasons for the delay in filing her appeal disclose compassionate. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Stacy Rose
CUB 55036 -The penalty was imposed on November 16, 2000 but the claimant didn't seek to appeal until March 21, 2001. Section 114 of the Act states that a claimant may appeal a decision from the Commission within 30 days after the day on which the decision is made known to them, or such at a further time as the Commission may allow special reasons. The claimant is illiterate and works a great distance from his home, during the said time the claimant's wife was taking courses in Victoria. The couple cares for their grandchildren who do not always remember to pick up the mail when they are away. The Board felt that there was no compelling reason for delay, unfortunately the test is not whether the reason is compelling but if it is special. The Umpire felt that the claimant's reason was special. As in CUB 51366, the delay was not caused by carelessness as much as by circumstances out of the claimant's hands. The appeal was allowed and the extension granted.
Appellant: Norman Dick
CUB 57221- The Commission found that the reasons for delaying the claimant's appeal did not justify special reason and the Board agreed, without reason, with the decision of the Commission and rejected the claimant's reasoning behind the delay. The Umpire upon reviewing the claim, relied on a decision of the Federal Court of Appeal in Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal, Judge Strayer states:A-321-97
" we are of the view that the Board of Referees, to comply with that subsection, must when there is an issue of credibility state at least briefly, as part of its findings....on questions of fact material to the decision,' that it rejects certain evidence on this basis and why. When it fails to do so it errs in law."
The Umpire also relied on the decision in Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal, Judge Linden wrote:A-297-97
" It is imperative for Boards of Referees to address the issues actually presented to them carefully and to explain their findings in coherent and consistent reasoning. Anything less is unacceptable."
The Umpire allowed the extension of the appeal due to the fact that the claimant's explanations were well founded and the failure of the Board to give an explanation as to why they rejected the claimant's appeal. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Sonnine Nazaire
CUB 57455-The claimant sent a letter to the Commission stating that he was appealing the decision, the letter was " clearly a letter of appeal" . Yet, an agent from the Commission denied that this letter was a letter of appeal and never got back to the claimant until nearly two months after the appeal letter was sent to the Commission. The claimant again sent a letter of appeal to the Commission but it was refused by both the Commission and the Board of Referees. The Umpire in reviewing the claim found that the claimant was realistic in believing that the first letter sent was a letter of appeal and he was waiting the few months for a Notice of Hearing. The Umpire states that the claimant should be given the benefit of the doubt in this circumstances. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Robert Cates
CUB 57876- The claimant is appealing the decision that she was beyond the deadline of the 30 day appeal period. The claimant stated that she did not receive any letters or phone calls regarding overpayment and a penalty yet the Commission stated that they had sent these letters to the claimant. She only learned of it when Revenue Canada deducted money from her income tax refund. The Umpire reviewed the case and stated:
" If a claimant does not receive a Commission ruling, either because it was not mailed or because Canada Post did not deliver it, that constitutes special reason for extending the time for appealing to the Board of Referees."
The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Fahimeh Kashani
CUB 59040 - At the hearing before the Umpire, the claimant stated that he could not prepare his appeal because he did not have the critical information which he needed before he could make his argument before the Board. The claimant stated before the Umpire that the papers that he was looking for were eventually found, this was after the Commission told him that the papers were non-existent. Faced with these new circumstances and the new information, Umpire Riche was satisfied that the claimant did not have a proper hearing before the Board and therefore should be given a new hearing. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Charles Jewett
CUB 59062 - The claimant appealed the Commission's decision, as well the Commission refused to grant an extension to the 30 day limit to appeal their decision. The claimant stated that the reasons she had not appealed earlier was because she was not made fully aware of the circumstances surrounding her disqualification until the deadline had passed. She stated that she had been confused by the several letters that she had received in the same envelope. The Umpire felt that the claimant was obviously confused and believed that she should wait to receive ROE before proceeding. this constituted reasons that the Board needed to address if it was to reject them. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Kari Larson
CUB 59231 - On July 8, 2002, the claimant filed her notice of appeal in written form, dated July 3, 2002. The Commission refused to accept the claimant's appeal because it was filed well beyond the 30-day limit. The only ground for appeal by the claimant, to the Board, from the Commission's refusal to extend the time of the appeal is that the Commission failed to exercise its discretion in a judicial manner. The Board's role is, therefore, limited to determining whether the Commission acted on the basis of irrelevant considerations or without regard to the factors of relevance. The Board erred in law when it did not determine the validity of the discretion exercised by the Commission. Instead, the Board delved into the merits of the claimant's reasons for the delay and determined the appeal on that basis. Umpire Haddad gave recognition to the fact that counsel for the Commission, at the opening of the appeal, immediately identified the error committed by the Board. The appeal was allowed and returned to a new Board.
Appellant: Corinne J. McIntosh
CUB 61257 -The claimant stated that he has been trying to resolve the issues regarding his claim for a while and that he had filed an appeal but it was sent to the wrong address. He also indicated that he had made several calls to the Commission and also requested a meeting to discuss the issue between him and the Commission, but his efforts had been unsuccessful. The Commission's statement that it had no record of receiving the claimant's initial letter cannot, by itself, stand as proof that the claimant had not sent the letter. I can take judicial notice that the Commission has on occasion misplaced documents. The claimant maintained that he had done all possible to deal with his claim and in contesting the Commission's decision. The Commission has the discretion to allow the filing of a delayed appeal to a Board of Referees but, as stated in numerous decisions if it is shown that the Commission failed to consider all relevant evidence in arriving at its decision, intervention by a Board of Referees or an Umpire is warranted, see Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal, Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appealand Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal.The Commission failed to take into account the claimant's credible evidence that he had sent in a letter of appeal. The Commission's statement that they have no record of receiving the letter cannot disprove the claimant's evidence that he sent it. The Umpire felt he should have been given the benefit of the doubt and allowed to proceed with the filing of his appeal. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Avtar Randhawa
CUB 63271 - The claimant waited several months to appeal the Commission's decision not to allow regular benefits. He indicated that it was only at this later date that he realized he had just cause to voluntarily leave his job. Previously, he had been too stressed. The Board of Referees seems to have confused the question of extending time for an appeal with issues of antedating a claim for benefits. Although there is no medical evidence in the record it is apparent from the record that the claimant was indeed under stress both in the workplace and at home where he was the single parent of three teenage children. The Board of Referees did not use the words " special reasons" but rather referred to " good cause" and the " interest of natural justice" . The Umpire found that the stressful situations in which the claimant found himself were special reasons that justify an extension of time for him to appeal to the Board of Referees. The appeal is dismissed.
CUB 63548 - The Board dismissed the claimant's appeal of a decision of the Employment Insurance Commission. The Commission had denied the claimant's claim to benefits on the basis that his loss of employment was as a result of his own misconduct and of his delay in bringing a claim for benefits. At the hearing of his appeal to the Board, the claimant did not appear. With his notice of Appeal to the Umpire, he submits that he did not receive notice of the hearing. In light of the issues raised before the Board, the claimant's oral testimony may have affected the Board's decision. In this case, the Commission acknowledges the possible breach of natural justice. In the circumstances, the appeal was allowed and the matter referred back to a newly-constituted Board.
Appellant: James Wolfenber
CUB 66814 - The claimant did not receive the notification and therefore did not appeal the decision of the Commission. The claimant stated that he changed his address when he filed his claim in January, where he stated his address and postal code. He also listed the same address as his residential address. The Board found that having not received a decision on benefits within a relatively short period of time, a reasonable person would inquire as to the status of the decision. Even though there was a delay in this matter, the delay was not caused by the claimant. In these circumstances, the errors are mainly with the Commission. Had the Commission sent its letter of January 19, 2005 to his address which was shown on his application, then the claimant would have received it. The Umpire found that it was the Commission's error which caused all of the claimant's grief. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Kevin Piercey
CUB 75559 Umipre Decision - The Board of Referees denied the claimant’s application for an extension of time to file an appeal as he did not meet the 30 day appeal period for appeals to the Board of Referees as imposed by section 114(10)(a) of Employment Insurance Act as well as denied a request for further time under the EIA s. 114(1)(b). In his appeal to the Umpire, the claimant filed a written submission that he did apply on time. Evidence in the docket indicates he had 30 days from January 18, 2010 to appeal and that his appeal letter was stamped received by the Commission on Feb¬ruary 24, 2010. He was in Alberta and did not receive notice of the appeal deadline. He did not date his appeal letter and does not know the date he mailed it. There is no reason to conclude that the appeal was not mailed in time from Alberta, but arrived late in Nova Scotia. The appeal was allowed.
CUB 78517Umipre Decision - The claimant stated within the past year the reasons for not filing were a significant number of personal and family issues he had to deal with. This resulted in great stress that caused him to neglect and follow up on his claim. With all these circumstances taken as a whole the Board found the claimant acted as a reasonable person. The appeal was dismissed.
Delayed Appeal to the Umpire
CUB 48043 -The claimant advised the Board of Referees that he would be unable to attend the hearing as he had just commenced a new job, however, the appeal went ahead and a decision was rendered in his absence. The claimant requested a rehearing and was advised his only option was to launch an appeal to the Umpire. The Umpire states that the appeal should not have proceeded without the claimant but rather should have been adjourned and therefore, grants an extension of the 60 day appeal period.
Appellant: Robert Bailey
CUB 48084- After reading the Board's decision, the claimant believed he had won his appeal. It was not until the claimant received a notice from the Commission that he realized there was an outstanding amount for an overpayment and penalty. It is true that the Board allowed the claimant's appeal with respect to the penalties imposed on him for false and misleading statements and therefore the claimant incorrectly assumed that the Board's decision included the overpayment of benefits. According to the Umpire's decision this was an honest and understandable error.
Appellant: Robert Collinson
CUB 56452 - The claimant is appealing the decision from the Board dated April 23, 2002. The claimant's appeal to the Umpire was received on September 10, 2002, this was outside the sixty day appeal period provided in section 116 of the Act. This section reads as follows:
116. The appeal must be brought in the prescribed manner within 60 days after the decision is communicated to the person bringing the appeal, or any longer period that the umpire may allow for special reasons.
The jurisprudence has established that " special reasons" for a delay in an appeal to the Umpire can include compassionate reasons or circumstances which are beyond the claimant's control. Ignorance of the appeal process, forgetfulness or simple negligence do not count as special reasons. In this case the Commission concedes that there are special reasons. For this reason, an extension of the sixty day appeal period is granted. Appeal allowed.
Appellant: Juan Requeno
CUB 56774- The claimant is appealing the decision that she didn't have " special reasons" not to make the sixty-day appeal period. The Umpire after reviewing the case found that there were extenuating circumstances which warrant an extension of the appeal period. The union representative for the claimant made a clerical error therefore the claimant had no control over the circumstances herself. The Umpire did not agree with the Commission that onus is still on the claimant and decided that " in the interest of justice, the proper course to follow was to allow the claimant's appeal. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Sheri Stoesz
CUB 56794- The claimant is appealing the decision that she had " special reasons" not to make the sixty-day appeal period. The Umpire decided after reviewing the material on file that the claimant had made the intention known that she wanted to appeal the decision of the overpayment. The claimant took every immediate action and was in no way negligent. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Vickie De Rouville
CUB 56795- The claimant is appealing delaying the claim for 15 days after the expiry of the appeal period. The Umpire after reviewing the case decided that the delay may be caused partially to a language barrier and the claimant stated that he would like another hearing where someone would represent him. The Umpire also noted that the claimant had been away from his regular address for some time but later returned. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Russain Khan
CUB 56940- The Umpire decided to allow the appeal due to the material that was on file. The Umpire found that the claimant was legitimately confused by the effect of the Board of Referees' decision because he continued to receive sickness benefits. After he stopped receiving sickness benefits, he contacted the Commission and only then did he become aware of the difference between sickness and regular benefits. The evidence also suggested that the claimant was having a difficult time getting information out of the Commission. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Micheal Bak
CUB 58000 - The claimant is appealing the decision from the Board rendered on March 27, 2002. The decision was communicated to the claimant in March 28, 2002. The claimant's appeal to the Umpire from the Board's decision was received by the Commission on January 29, 2003, which is outside the sixty-day appeal period. Past case law has established that special reasons for a delay in launching an appeal to the Umpire include compassionate reasons or circumstances which are beyond the claimant's control. However, ignorance of the appeal process, forgetfulness or simple negligence do not constitute special reasons. In the present case, it seems that the claimant had relied on her representative to file her appeal and that when her representative showed her a letter dated May 7, 2002, she believed that the appeal had been filed already. In the opinion of the Umpire, the claimant should be given the benefit of the doubt. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Seemi Malik
See also - CUB 58780
CUB 65288 -The law provides that a longer period may be allowed for humanitarian reasons or for reasons beyond the claimant's control. Ignorance or negligence of the appeal process do not constitute " special reasons" In this case, the claimant argues that she did not receive either the notice of hearing or the decision of the Board of Referees with respect to her appeal. She thought bankruptcy had cancelled her debt. She only learned in November 2005 that she still owed money to the Commission when her GST refund was used to partially repay her debt. In this case, although the period of the delay is considerable, the claimant's explanation appears reasonable to the Umpire who returned the case to a differently constituted Board for a new decision.
Appellant: Sylvie Aubry
CUB 65764 - The claimant's appeal was received by the Commission on February 22, 2006, after the 60-day period set out in section 116 of the Employment Insurance Act had expired. In his notice of appeal, the claimant explained that he filed his appeal late because he was seriously ill. He was unable to file his appeal in the period of time set out in the Act owing to his health problems. The Umpire found that claimant's explanations constituted special reasons, thereby warranting extension of the appeal period. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Jean Brouillard
CUB 65791 - The Commission received its appeal on February 15, 2006, that is after the 60 day time limit set out in section 116 of the Employment Insurance Act. The claimant explained that he delayed in filing his appeal because he was waiting for information from the person who was to represent him. He was not physically or psychologically able to take care of this matter himself. The Umpire found that claimant's explanations constituted special reasons which warrant the extension of the appeal period. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Pasquale Sebastiano
CUB 69119 -The claimant's appeal to the Umpire was received by the Commission outside the sixty-day appeal period. The jurisprudence has established that “special reasons” for delay in launching an appeal to the Umpire include compassionate reasons or circumstances which are beyond the claimant's control. The Commission maintained that the delay was due to the claimant's language barrier and that there was an onus on her to use an interpreter and that she had access to one. After reviewing the other compassionate reasons outlined in the claimant's letter of appeal, the Umpire granted an extension of the sixty-day appeal period.
CUB 69349 - The claimant's appeal to the Umpire was received outside the sixty-day appeal period. After reviewing the material on file, the Umpire found that there were circumstances which were beyond the claimant's control and which were the reason for the delay. He sought assistance of his MP in a timely and reasonable manner but unfortunately, his file as explained by the MP's office, “fell through the cracks”. For these reasons the Umpire allowed an extension of the sixty-day period.
CUB 69485 - The claimant's notice of appeal was received by the Commission on October 1, 2007 which was after the sixty-day appeal period. The claimant's argument was that he sent a first notice of appeal one month before but did not receive any confirmation of its receipt. Hence he sent another notice of appeal on September 25, 2007. The Commission submitted that the claimant's explanation was credible. The claimant's extension was allowed.
CUB 69548 - The claimant filed his appeal to the Umpire outside the sixty-day appeal period. After reviewing the material on file, the Umpire was satisfied that the extension of the appeal should be allowed. The Umpire found that there are compassionate reasons which constitute special reasons for the delay. There was evidence that the claimant was confused as to the proper filing procedures and it was also clear that her delay was not a result of carelessness or negligence. The claimant's extension was allowed.
CUB 69941 - The claimant's appeal was received by the Commission outside the sixty-day appeal period. The Umpire after reviewing the material on file, was satisfied that the appeal period should be extended. The claimant was represented by a financial accounting and income tax specialist throughout all levels of his appeal process and was represented by this individual, in his absence at the hearing before the Board of Referees. It is clear from the evidence on file that the claimant received a copy of the Board's decision at the same time as his representative, but he rightly believed so that his representative would take the next appropriate step of filing an appeal to the Umpire as was clearly the arrangement which existed between them throughout the appeal process. Following this, the claimant's representative suffered medical problems and due to scheduling, his office closed down for a period of time during the period of delay as well. The Umpire found that these were circumstances which were beyond the control of the claimant and allowed the extension of the sixty-day appeal period.
CUB 72076- The claimant was appealing a decision given by the Board of Referees after the expiry of the 60-day period. The claimant argued that she sent her letter of appeal to the wrong address and it was returned to her. The appeal was allowed.
Delayed Appeal to the Umpire - Health Reasons (New) delayed_appeal_umpire_health_reasons (new)
CUB 71116 - In order for an appeal to be heard outside of the 60 day appeal period, there must be special reasons beyond ignorance, forgetfulness, or negligence. Due to multiple changes of address, mental health issues, addiction, and other personal problems, the claimant was unable to file an appeal during the 60 day appeal period. The nature of the reasons provided by the claimant required compassion. The appeal was allowed.