CUB 48043
IN THE MATTER of the EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
- and -
IN THE MATTER of a claim by
ROBERT BAILEY
- and -
IN THE MATTER of an appeal to an Umpire by the claimant from a decision by the Board of Referees given on May 18, 1999, at New Westminster, British Columbia
ROULEAU, J.
This is an appeal by the claimant from a decision of a Board of Referees rendered on May 18, 1999. The decision was communicated to the claimant on the same date. Mr. Bailey's appeal to the Umpire from the Board's decision was received by the Commission on November 24, 1999, which is outside the sixty day appeal period provided for in section 116 of the Employment Insurance Act. That 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 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, the claimant advised the Board of Referees that he would be unable to attend the hearing as he had just commenced a new job. Rather than adjourn the matter, the Board rendered its decision based on the material in the file. Mr. Bailey contacted the Commission in November of 1999 to enquire why a hearing was held before the Board and a decision rendered in his absence. It appears that he wished to have a rehearing before the Board so that he could be present. However, the claimant was advised that his only option was to launch an appeal to the Umpire and to provide an explanation as to why he was outside the sixty-day time period prescribed by the legislation.
I am satisfied that there are special reasons here which warrant an extension of the appeal period. After the claimant made it known that he would be unable to attend the hearing before the Board of Referees, the hearing should not have proceeded in his absence but rather should have been adjourned. I do not agree with the implication made by the Commission in its Representations to the Umpire that the onus was on Mr. Bailey to explicitly request an adjournment. Claimants are not generally legal experts and understandably rely upon the advice and information given to them by public officials. Given these facts, dismissing the claimant's appeal to the Umpire at this stage would effectively deny him any and all opportunity to present his case and would constitute a denial of natural justice. In any event, the delay is not long and there will be no prejudice to the Commission by allowing the claimant's appeal to proceed.
For these reasons, I am granting an extension of the sixty day appeal period.
"P. ROULEAU"
UMPIRE
OTTAWA, Ontario
April 13, 2000
2011-01-10