CUB 25879

JEROME, A.C.J. UMPIRE

The Commission appeals the unanimous decision of a Board of Referees which determined that the claimant had established good cause for the delay in filing her claim for benefits and was therefore entitled to antedate her claim pursuant to subsection 9(4) of the Act.

The claimant was employed as a teaching assistant from October of 1992 to June of 1993. She filed a claim for benefits on October 12, 1993 and requested that it be antedated to June 25th. The claimant explained that she had not filed her claim earlier as she was not aware that she qualified for benefits. On this information, the Commission determined that the claimant had not established good cause for the delay and was not entitled to antedate her claim under subsection 9(4) of the Act. The claimant appealed this decision to a Board of Referees which unanimously allowed her appeal for the following reasons:

The claimant had no additional information to present to the Board, but was very thorough in her explanation of lack of familiarity with the U.I. system. In other words, this claimant had no idea that she would qualify for benefits, as her past history is teaching full time and she was aware that full time teaching does not qualify for U.I. benefits during school breaks.

The Commission appeals this decision on the ground that the Board erred in law as contemplated by section 80(b) of the Act. Essentially, the Commission argues that the claimant's ignorance of her right to benefits coupled with her failure to make inquiries of the Commission preclude her from establishing good cause for the three month delay in filing her claim for benefits.

The test to be applied when determining whether a claimant has established good cause for the delay in filing a claim for benefits was clearly stated by the Federal Court of Appeal in Attorney-General of Canada v. Gauthier (A-1789-83, October 9, 1994) wherein Hugessen J.A. states:

At the very least, in our view, good cause must also include circumstances in which it is reasonable for a claimant consciously to delay making a claim. The courts should not impose artificial impediments to a laudable restraint on the part of a claimant who reasonably delays making a claim for benefits.

Whether or not it was reasonable in the circumstances for a claimant to delay filing the claim is a question of fact. The composition of Boards of Referees and the nature of the proceedings before them place them in a better position than the Umpire to make these kinds of findings. Here, given the fact that the claimant had been working as a teaching assistant and was aware that generally, teachers are not eligible to receive benefits during the non-teaching months of the year, there was evidence before the Board on which it could conclude that in the circumstances it was reasonable for the claimant to delay filing a claim.

The appeal is therefore dismissed.

OTTAWA
October 21, 1994

"James A. Jerome"

CHIEF UMPIRE