TRANSLATION
IN THE MATTER of the EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
- and -
IN THE MATTER of a claim for benefit by
Pierre GODIN
- and -
IN THE MATTER of an appeal to an Umpire by the claimant from the decision
of a Board of Referees given at Bathurst, New Brunswick
on March 5, 2002.
GUY GOULARD, Umpire
The claimant filed a claim for benefit on December 7, 2001 and asked that his claim be backdated to August 1, 2001. He explained that the delay was due to the fact that there had been a misunderstanding between him and the representative of the Entrepreneurship Centre. The Commission determined that the claimant had not established good cause for his delay in filing his claim and rejected the request to backdate it.
The claimant appealed the Commission's decision to a Board of Referees, which dismissed the appeal by a majority decision. He then appealed the Board's decision to the Umpire. That appeal was heard in Bathurst, New Brunswick, on July 30, 2002. The claimant was present. The Commission was represented by Kim Duggan.
The majority decision of the Board of Referees reads as follows:
[Translation]
The claimant tells us that the reason he did not file an unemployment claim is that he was misinformed by the Entrepreneurship Centre in Tracadie. According to the information received from Paulette Robert, he was not entitled to his benefits.
[Translation]
Pursuant to section 10 of the Employment Insurance Act, the request to backdate the claim is denied. The claimant should have consulted the employment insurance office to request advice on how to file a claim for benefit.
The minority member would have allowed the appeal for the following reasons:
[Translation]
I render my decision because he had a valid reason for the delay in filing his claim in that the "Paulette Robert" Entrepreneurship Centre had not given him the necessary information. It was for that reason that he filed a claim for August 1, 2001.
At the hearing, the claimant said that, on the advice given him at the Entrepreneurship Centre in Tracadie, he had gone to the employment insurance office but that no one at that office was aware of the SE program, and that he had been told to request information at the Entrepreneurship Centre. He therefore trusted that the information received was correct.
I asked the Commission to provide me with a transcript of the hearing before the Board of Referees, but I was informed that the hearing had not been recorded.
I found the claimant highly credible and will therefore accept his testimony that he consulted the employment insurance office, but without success. He therefore established good cause for his delay.
Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The decision of the Board of Referees is set aside and the decision of the Commission is rescinded.
GUY GOULARD
UMPIRE
OTTAWA, Ontario
August 20, 2002