CUB 57950

KRINDLE, Hon.

The claimant appeals a decision of the majority of the board of referees refusing his request to antedate because he failed to provide sufficient evidence to show good cause for the delay in making a claim for benefits.

The appellant stated that he phoned his local h.r.d.c. office when his employment first ended and was advised by them that he was not entitled to benefits. He stated that he read on an information sheet that he could apply one year later which he did. The majority of the board ruled that the claimant did not show good cause for the delay in making a claim for benefits "because ignorance of the Act should not cause the claimant to delay in filing his claim within the time as described in the Act". The majority stated "The claimant failed to use all the necessary information that was available to him at the time when he should have made a claim for benefits".

There is no issue that, if the claimant's version of events was accepted by the majority of the board of referees, the claimant attended to the h.r.d.c. office in a timely fashion, was given erroneous advice by a representative of the h.r.d.c. as to his then eligibility for benefits and was advised to reapply one year later, which he did. There is no question that the claimant might have gone further in attempting to determine whether the information he was given was correct or not. But that was not the issue before the board. The issue is whether the claimant acted as a reasonable and prudent person would in accepting the advice of the commission's agent. This assumes that the claimant's testimony is accepted. The reasons of the majority are silent on that issue.

I do not believe that the majority of the board correctly directed itself in law. The appeal is allowed and a new hearing ordered.

Ruth Krindle

UMPIRE

OTTAWA, Ontario
July 8, 2003