CUB 65144

PAUL ROULEAU, Chief Umpire Designate

The Commission appeals from the Board of Referees' decision to the effect that the claimant had shown that he had good cause for the delay in filing his claim for Employment Insurance benefits.

The claimant worked as an electrician helper for Installations électriques L H Ltée from January 5, 2004 to June 4, 2004 and accumulated 691 hours of insurable employment during this period. It is clear that the claimant had previously filed a claim and that he had received benefits. This benefit claim ended toward the end of December 2004. He filed a claim for benefits on February 14, 2005. The Commission determined that the claimant had accumulated only 505 hours of insurable employment during his qualifying period, which began on February 16, 2004 and ended on February 12, 2005, whereas he needed 665 hours to qualify.

The claimant requested that his claim be antedated to December 19, 2004. He explained that he did not know that he had to file another claim. He explained that he was not in the habit of using the system since it had been a long time since he had filed a claim. In Exhibit 8-3, the claimant indicated that he believed that he was no longer entitled to receive Employment Insurance benefits because he had received a notice at the end of December that read "[Translation] last payment". He did not realize that because he had worked during his previous benefit period, he had accumulated a sufficient number of hours of insurable employment to qualify for a new benefit period. His colleagues told him that he should apply for benefits since he had worked. He therefore filed a claim on February 14, 2005.

The Commission informed the claimant that it could not antedate his claim to December 19, 2004 because he had not proven that he had good cause for the delay in filing his claim from December 19, 2004 to February 13, 2005. The Commission also informed the claimant that he had not accumulated the number of hours of insurable employment required to be entitled to receive benefits.

The claimant appealed from the Commission's determination to a Board of Referees, which, after hearing the claimant's testimony and reviewing the documentary evidence in the docket, concluded as follows:

After hearing the claimant's testimony, the Board considers that he did not file a new benefit claim in the belief that his last claim was still active. No one had advised him to contact the Commission for information about his case. All that is indicated on Exhibit 8-3 is that this was his final payment and he should provide any change of address to the HRC before January to receive his T4E. According to the Board, the claimant was not aware that he should report to the Commission for information on the status of his case. It is therefore understandable that the claimant, believing that his last claim was still in effect, should have delayed failing a new benefit claim. He had nothing to indicate to him that his last benefit claim had expired. So it is understandable that this claimant's delay in filing a new claim was legitimate, especially since he had taken steps to inquire into whether he could have his benefits increased. Considering that he had taken those steps, and regarding him as a credible person, the Board does not see how his delay could not be legitimate. All the same, he should have been better informed.

Therefore the members of the Board unanimously allow this appeal.

The Commission appeals from the Board of Referees' decision to an Umpire and submits that the Board erred in fact and in law by deciding as it did.

It is clear that if the Commission had antedated his claim, if only by a few weeks, the claimant would have the number of hours required to qualify for a benefit period.

With respect to antedating the claim, the question that we must ask is whether the claimant had good cause for the delay. The onus is on a claimant to show that he or she acted as a reasonable and prudent person would have acted under the circumstances.

In the instant case, the Board of Referees determined that the reasons given by the claimant for the delay in filing his benefit claim constituted good cause for the entire duration of the delay.

A review of the facts in the docket shows that the Board of Referees had sufficient evidence before it to draw the conclusion that it did. The Board did not make an error of fact or of law that would enable me to intervene.

Consequently, the Commission's appeal is dismissed.

Paul Rouleau

UMPIRE

OTTAWA, Ontario
January 27, 2006