CUB 46079
TRANSLATION
IN THE MATTER OF THE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
- and -
IN THE MATTER of a claim for benefits by
GILBERT DEGUIRE
- and -
IN THE MATTER of an appeal to an Umpire by the
claimant from a decision by the Board of Referees given
on November 17, 1997 in St-Jérôme, Quebec
DECISION
DUBÉ, UMPIRE
The issue in this case is whether the claimant had a valid reason to justify his delay in submitting a claim for benefits.
The chronology of events is as follows. The claimant, who was laid off by Bell Canada on January 1, 1996, collected severance pay equal to 16 months of salary. He filed an initial claim with the Commission on November 5, 1996 and mentioned to the officer that he was thinking of starting up a business. She reportedly told him that "she would get an investigator after him". He therefore withdrew his claim.
He filed a second claim on May 7, 1997, once his 16 months of severance pay was completed; however, the Commission denied his claim on the ground that he had no hours of insurable employment (he needed 490). In June 17, 1997, he filled out an antedate request. To explain the 16-month delay, he wrote that he believed he had to wait until his severance pay was up before he filed a claim. The Commission turned down his antedate, stating that he did not act prudently by failing to find out what his rights were.
The Board unanimously denied the claimant's appeal as it was "of the opinion that he failed to act prudently and diligently, as a reasonable person would have under the same circumstances, to find out what his rights and obligations were".
It must be stated that the antedate, which was denied, covered the period from January 1, 1996 (the date he lost his employment) to November 5, 1996, when he filed his first claim. The claimant was applying for unemployment insurance benefits for the first time in 23 years. Someone at Bell apparently told him he was not entitled to benefits during the period covered by his severance pay.
The Board cited two Federal Court of Appeal decisions, to wit, Larouche (A-644-93) and Albrecht (A-172-85), in which it was determined that the claimant must be able to prove he acted as a reasonable person would have to find out what his rights and obligations were.
This well-known principle, however, must not lend itself to stringent interpretation. It does not imply that the claimant is obligated to obtain a legal opinion or specific information directly from a Commission official. It clearly appears in the file that the employer had informed the claimant that he was not entitled to benefits during the 16 months his severance pay was to run and that there was no need for him to submit a claim for benefits until this time was up. The claimant was clearly acting in good faith and was fully justified in relying on an employer of the caliber of Bell Canada.
My colleague, Rouleau J., dealt with a similar matter in Daniel Kay (CUB 36384A). When the claimant was laid off, the compensation officer and a professional advisor with the employer advised the claimant that there was no need for him to submit a claim for benefits until he went through his severance pay. The umpire upheld the claimant's appeal on the ground that "ignorance of the law is no excuse" cannot be used as a principle of general application to deny appeals of this nature.
In Monique Chamberland (CUB 40657), my colleague, Joyal J., analyzed the case where the claimant, who had a long career in the Public Service and no experience with unemployment insurance, was advised by her employer that she was not eligible for benefits during her severance pay period. As it turned out, this information was not considered an erroneous opinion, since the claimant indeed was not eligible for benefits during this period. The umpire stated that "it seems to me that when an employer provides information concerning the loss of employment and access to unemployment insurance, it is entirely reasonable to conclude that the information is being provided knowingly and not to mislead anyone".
My belief is along the same lines. I think the claimant in this case acted in good faith and conducted himself as a reasonable person would have by relying on instructions from his employer. Of course, I believe that few people know that, even though they may not be entitled to benefits, they must nonetheless file a claim.
Consequently, I must uphold this appeal.
J. E. DUBÉ
UMPIRE
OTTAWA, Ontario
September 13, 1999
2011-01-10