IN THE MATTER of the EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
and
In the matter of a claim for benefits by
Robert CATES
and
IN THE MATTER of an appeal by the claimant from the decision of a Board of Referees given on January 15, 2002 at Barrie, Ontario
DECISION
GUY GOULARD, Umpire
The claimant worked for R. Becker Marketing from October 15, 1996 until August 27, 1999. On October 25, 1999, he applied for employment insurance benefits. A claim was established effective October 17, 1999. The Commission later determined that the claimant had failed to report earnings during his benefit period, that he would have to reimburse an overpayment as well as a penalty for making false of misleading statements and that he was not entitled to benefits as of April 17, 2000 because he was working full weeks. These decisions were communicated to the claimant on October 10, 2000. On November 10, 2000, the claimant sent a letter to the Commission advising that he was appealing their decision. This is clearly a letter of appeal. The claimant states that he will attend the hearing and goes on to present his situation.
There is then a note in the file, by a Commission agent, to the effect that the claimant does not want to proceed with the appeal but will submit further facts. The Commission wrote a letter to the claimant dated January 19, 2001 advising him that they were not changing their decision. There is then a document, (Exhibit 10-1), prepared by a Commission agent which states that the November 10, 2000 letter was not a letter of appeal.
The claimant further appealed the decisions by letter dated December 6, 2001 (Exhibit 11). The Commission refused to extend the 30 day limit to appeal their decision to the Board of Referees because the claimant had failed to establish special reasons for his delay.
The claimant appealed the Commission's decision refusing to extend the time to appeal to the Board of Referees who unanimously dismissed the appeal. He appealed the Board's decision to the Umpire. This appeal was heard in Barrie, Ontario, on March 28, 2003. The claimant was present. The Commission was represented by Ms. Sharon McGovern.
The claimant explained that he had believed his November 10, 2000 was his letter of appeal and that he had been waiting for a Notice of Hearing when garnishment was issued against him. He states that he never received the Commission's letter of January 19, 2001.
I accept that the claimant could realistically believe that he had started his appeal with the November 10, 2000 letter. He states that it would not be unreasonable to still have been waiting by January 2001. He gives the example of the current appeal to the Umpire which he filed in March 14, 2002 to be heard only a year later.
I accept that the claimant should, at the very least, have been given the benefit of the doubt that he had filed his appeal in due time.
The Board's decision is set aside. The claimant's appeal of the Commission's decision refusal to send his initial appeal to a Board of Referees is allowed.
GUY GOULARD
UMPIRE
OTTAWA, Ontario
April 4, 2003