IN THE MATTER of the EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
and
In the matter of a claim for benefits by
John BECANIC
and
IN THE MATTER of an appeal by the claimant from the decision of a Board of Referees given on March 21, 2003, at Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario
DECISION
GUY GOULARD, Umpire
The claimant filed an initial claim for benefits on January 27, 2003. The claim was based on insurable employment which ended November 30, 1997. He requested that his claim be antedated to December, 1997. He indicated that he had not been aware earlier that he could establish a claim but found out that some of his co-workers had established claims and he therefore applied. The Commission determined that the claimant had not shown good cause for his five year delay in applying.
The claimant appealed the Commission's decision to the Board of Referees who, in a majority decision, dismissed the appeal. He appealed the Board's decision to the Umpire. This appeal was heard in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, on October 21, 2003. The claimant was present. The Commission was represented by Mr. Derek Edwards.
The reason given by the claimant for not applying earlier was described as follows in Exhibit 4-2:
"It was at this point in time that I applied for Employment Insurance benefits and was denied. I was told that the money I was receiving from my Algoma Steel pension would cancel out any money I might receive from Employment Insurance benefits. I made several phone calls to the Elliott Lake Employment Insurance office and was told each time that my pension benefits were too large of an amount for me to receive any benefits. I finally accepted their logic and did not pursue this matter any further."
The claimant repeated these reasons in his letter of appeal to the Board.
In their decision, the majority members of the Board reviewed the evidence and concluded that the claimant had not shown good cause as it was established in the jurisprudence that inaccurate information from a Commission employee does not give rise to liability on the part of the Commission and that the Act requires prompt filing of a claim.
The Federal Court of Appeal in the Albrecht (A-172-85) stated that test for good cause is whether the claimant acted as a reasonably prudent person would have in the same circumstances, either to clarify the situation regarding his employment or to determine his rights and obligations.
In CUB 11100, Justice Muldoon, sitting as an Umpire provides the following guidance for determining if a claimant falls within the description of a reasonable person:
"The question then is to determine what is expected of a "reasonable person". Now, a reasonable person is not an anxiety-ridden paranoiac who doubts or disbelieves an apparently authoritative word of advice to the point of seeking to verify that advice again and again, daily or periodically, lest the advice be erroneous. A reasonable person, being initially justified in accepting that apparently authoritative advice, naturally continues to accept unless or until its error or untrustworthiness be brought to his attention. That exactly describes the claimant's course of conduct, which was that of a reasonable person. After all, the original justification does not "rust" or otherwise deteriorate merely because of the effluxion of time, prodigious as it was."
In this case, the claimant attempted to file his claim. The Commission refused to let him do so. He made several calls to the Commission Office and to the 1-800 number. It cannot be said that he did not act as a reasonable person would have in the same circumstances. To the contrary, the claimant had taken all reasonable steps to file his claim and to inform himself of his rights.
The claimant's appeal is allowed and the Board's majority decision is set aside.
GUY GOULARD
UMPIRE
OTTAWA, Ontario
November 7, 2003