CUB 56794

ROULEAU, J.

This is an appeal by the claimant from a decision of a Board of Referees rendered on May 30, 2002. Ms. De Rouville's appeal to the Umpire from the Board's decision was received by the Commission on October 16, 2002, 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."

Here, after reviewing the material on file, I am satisfied that the appeal period should be extended and the claimant's appeal to the Umpire be allowed to proceed. The claimant maintains that she made her intention to appeal to the Umpire known as early as June 10, 2002. On that date she attended the HRDC office in Brantford to speak to an Insurance Agent concerning the Commission's refusal to recommend a write-off of the overpayment, although that had been the unequivocal recommendation of the Board of Referees.

The only other record of that June 10, 2002, visit are three pages of handwritten notes by the Insurance Officer who interviewed the claimant on that day. She states that she does not recall any discussion about an appeal to the Umpire. This is understandable however, given that her notes were written on November 7, 2002, five months after the interview took place.

In any event, what is clear is that the claimant took immediate action when she received the Commission's letter that they would not be writing off the overpayment. She attended the office and demanded an explanation as well as some written information pertaining to the Commission's authority to follow that course of action. She was not in any way negligent.

Under the circumstances, it is my view that the appropriate course to follow is to grant an extension of the appeal period and allow the claimant's appeal to the Umpire to proceed.

For these reasons, an extension of the appeal period is hereby granted.

"P. ROULEAU"

UMPIRE

OTTAWA, Ontario
April 7, 2003