CUB 41494
CUB 41494
TRANSLATION
IN THE MATTER OF THE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
- and -
IN THE MATTER of a claim for benefits by
Gérald Farley
- and -
IN THE MATTER of an appeal to an Umpire by the
claimant from a decision by the Board of Referees given
on January 28, 1997 in Hull, Quebec
DECISION
TREMBLAY-LAMER, UMPIRE
The claimant appealed a decision by the Board of Referees which refused to backdate his initial claim for benefits.
The claimant submitted his claim on November 4, 1996, nine months after leaving his employment with the External Affairs Department. He did not act promptly, as he was unaware of how the system operated and believed he could not submit a claim for benefits before his 62 weeks in severance pay he received from his employer ran out.
Section 26(1) of the Employment Insurance Regulations1 requires that a claim for benefits for a week of unemployment in a benefit period shall be made by a claimant within three weeks after the week for which benefits are claimed. Section 10(4) of the Employment Insurance Act2 does allow claims to be backdated if the claimant can show good cause to justify the delay.
In addition to noting that ignorance of the law cannot be accepted as reasonable grounds, the Board also based its decision on the fact that the claimant had never checked with the Commission to find out what his rights and obligations were.
There are several cases in the jurisprudence where claimants could not give ignorance of the law as a reason for being late if they did not take any action to find out what their rights were. Umpire Rouleau made the following statement in CUB 12766:
In effect, the authorities are consistent in the view that ignorance of the law does not justify delay. [See, for example. Nadine Pirotte v. Unemployment Insurance Commission [A-108-76].
Although Attorney General of Canada v. Waldemar Albrecht [A- 172-85 ] qualified this principle by stating that ignorance of the law also did not preclude the existence of a good cause, the fact nevertheless remains that neither ignorance of the law nor the mere good faith of the claimant alone is sufficient to provide him with a good cause. An additional reason must be shown.
The Board's finding is reasonable. In this case, the claimant did not act reasonably, since he never found out from the Commission what his rights and obligations were, as a reasonable and careful person would have done. He made the decision himself without consultation, which means he is responsible for his own negligence.
The umpire has no grounds to intervene in the matter of reasonable findings of fact by the Board and overrule members of the Board.
The appeal is therefore denied.
DANIÈLE TREMBLAY-LAMER
UMPIRE
OTTAWA, Ontario
July 9, 1998
1DORS/96-332.
2L.C. 1996, c. 23