TRANSLATION
IN THE MATTER of the EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
- and -
IN THE MATTER of a claim for benefits by
MARTIN HARDY
- and -
IN THE MATTER of an appeal to an Umpire by the Canada Employment Insurance Commission from the decision of a Board of Referees given on June 29, 2004 at Drummondville, Quebec.
DECISION
R.J. Marin, Umpire
[1] This appeal by the Commission was heard in Trois-Rivières on September 27, 2005.
[2] The Commission appeals from a Board of Referees' decision rescinding the Commission's determination regarding a request to antedate a claim. The Commission claims that the claimant failed to prove that he had good cause for his delay in filing his benefit claim within the meaning of section 10(5) of the Act.
[3] The Commission determined that the delay was from January 5, 2003 to November 19, 2003.
[4] The Board, for its part, intervened and found that the delay was justified and that the claimant had good cause for his delay from January 5, 2003 to May 1, 2003.
[5] The Board probably reviewed the exhibit in the appeal docket regarding the claimant's visits to a family practitioner. This exhibit stated that the claimant was treated for major depression. The same exhibit notes that treatment began in February 2003 and that stress had been detected. The doctor stated that the claimant could return to work in May and June 2003.
[6] The case law regarding the interpretation of section 10(5) seems relatively clear. Section 10(5) reads as follows:
10.(5) A claim for benefits, other than an initial claim for benefits, made after the time prescribed for making the claim shall be regarded as having been made on an earlier day if the claimant shows that there was good cause for the delay throughout the period beginning on the earlier day and ending on the day when the claim was made.
[7] The applicable case law is found in Albrecht (A-172-85), Smith (A-549-92) and Pellerin (A-1283-92), as well as in the Federal Court of Appeal decisions in Caron (A-395-85) and Larouche (A-644-93). According to this long line of authority, an insured person must show that he did what a reasonable and prudent person would have done under the same circumstances, namely, verify his employment situation and enquire about his rights and obligations. The case law presumes that this person is in full possession of his faculties and is not stressed to the point of needing medical help.
[8] I do not see how the Commission's position could be such that it would not tolerate any period of relaxation or possible recovery for a person who suffers from a bout of depression and who has evidence in support of the depression or who is going through a difficult period and who, out of no negligence on his part, filed his claim late. The Commission interpreted the case law too restrictively in the instant case.
[9] I dismiss the Commission's appeal and confirm the Board's decision in the instant case. The appeal by the Commission is dismissed.
R.J. MARIN
UMPIRE
OTTAWA, Ontario
October 28, 2005