• Home >
  • Jurisprudence Library
  • Federal Court Decision #A-242-05 - THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA v. CARRY, EMILY

    JUDGMENT OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

    Date:
    20051103

    Docket:
    A-242-05

    Citation:
    2005 FCA 367

    Umpire's Decision:
    CUB 63270;

    CORAM :

    LINDEN J.A.
    ROTHSTEIN J.A.
    PELLETIER J.A.

    BETWEEN :

    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,

    applicant,

    -and-

    EMILY CARRY,

    respondent.

    Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on November 3, 2005.

    REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
    (Delivered from the Bench at Toronto,
    on November 3, 2005) ;
    Rendered by

    LINDEN J.A.:

    [1] This application challenges the decision of an Umpire under the Employment Insurance Act for deciding that the Respondent had good cause for delaying the application for benefits.

    [2] The employment of the Respondent teacher ended by mandatory retirement on June 27, 2003. She applied for benefits on March 22, 2004 requesting that her application be antedated for September 1, 2003, on the bases that she was unaware of her eligibility to apply prior to March 22, 2004. The application to antedate the application was denied by the commission for lack of good cause and hence she was informed that she had insufficient hours to qualify. She appealed.

    [3] The Board of Referees allowed the appeal of the Respondent on the antedate issue. The commission then appealed.

    [4] The Umpire affirmed the decision of the Board on the basis that it was not unreasonable to hold that there was good cause in this case.

    [5] The jurisprudence of this Court, however, clearly does not permit such a conclusion in this case in that a reasonable person is expected to take reasonably prompt steps to determine her entitlement to Employment Insurance benefits. Ignorance of the law and good faith, the reasons offered for the delay of nine months in this case, have been held to be insufficient to amount to good cause.

    [6] We are, therefore, bound reluctantly to allow the application for judicial review and to remit the matter to the Chief Umpire or his designate for reconsideration in accordance with these reasons.



    "A. M. Linden"
    J.A.

    2011-01-10