In the Matter of the Employment Insurance Act,
S.C. 1996, c. 23
and
In the Matter of a claim for unemployment benefits by
Albina Backman
and
In the Matter of an Appeal by the Claimant from the decision of a Board of Referees given at North York, Ontario on May 12, 2005
Appeal heard at Toronto, Ontario on May 10, 2006
DECISION
R. C. STEVENSON, UMPIRE:
Ms. Backman appeals from the decision of a Board of Referees dismissing her appeal from Commission rulings denying her requests for antedate of her claims for unemployment benefits.
Ms. Backman was employed as an occasional or casual teacher by the Toronto District School Board. When her contract ended in June 2004 she promptly, on June 30, applied for benefits. Her claim was accepted but she did not make any bi-weekly reports either by submitting the traditional report cards or by using the Teledec system. Although the Commission says that Ms. Backman would have received, shortly after July 15, information about how to use the Teledec system she says she did not receive either that information or a supply of report cards. She had used cards when on previous claims and assumed the Commission would send them to her. She returned to work in September and did not pursue her claim until December during the Christmas break. She then completed cards for the summer weeks for which she had qualified. The Commission refused to antedate the bi-weekly claims. When Ms. Backman applied in March 2005 for benefits during the March school break the Commission denied her claim because she had not served a waiting period.
The Board of Referees did not make any findings of fact. It only said:
In the absence of new arguments, the board is compelled to side with the Commission.
The Board's failure to include in its decision a statement of its findings on questions of fact material to its decision is both an error of law and a failure to exercise its jurisdiction.
I will give the decision the Board should have given.
I find as a fact that Ms. Backman did not receive any information about the Teledec system and did not receive any reporting cards. Her failure to make inquiries during the summer was not unreasonable and her hours of work from September to December prevented her from attending at a Commission office. I find that she had good cause for delay throughout the relevant periods.
The appeal is allowed with respect to the rulings of the Commission dated January 17, 2005 and March 13, 2005.
Ronald C. Stevenson
Umpire
FREDERICTON, NEW BRUNSWICK
May 23, 2006