IN THE MATTER OF THE EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
and
in the matter of a claim for benefit by
KEVIN PIERCEY
and
IN THE MATTER of an appeal by the claimant from a decision of a Board of Referees given at St. John's, NL, on the 28th day of October, 2005.
DECISION
Hon. David G. Riche
The claimant is appealing a decision to deny him an extension of the 30-day appeal period pursuant to s. 114 of the EI Act.
The evidence before the Board of Referees was that the claimant had been disentitled to benefits. He did not receive the notification and therefore did not appeal the decision. The claimant stated that the letter was sent to his previous address. The claimant stated that he changed his address when he filed his claim in January, which is found in Exhibit 6. Then I reviewed Exhibit 2-2, which was the application of the claimant where he clearly states his address as being X * and then gives the postal code. He also lists the same address as his residential address.
Unfortunately in Exhibit 3 it shows that the Commission failed to send his letter of disentitlement to the proper address. They sent it to an address at Hopeall, NL. That was in spite of the fact that they had on his application his correct address. This was not a case of a claimant applying for his benefits and then changing his address. The claimant gave his correct address when he applied for his benefits. The Commission used a previous address.
The burden is on the claimant to show that he had good cause for his delay in appealing the denial of his benefits as shown in January of 2006. The Board found: "While Mr. Piercey changed residence during this time, the Board finds that it would have been reasonable to notify the Commission of a change in address so that any relevant correspondence from the Commission would be received. As well, the Board finds that having not received a decision on benefits within a relatively short period of time, a reasonable person would inquire as to the status of the decision."
Then in Exhibit 5 the Commission again wrote the claimant advising him that his appeal to the Board of Referees would not be permitted because he missed the 30-day deadline. The fact is that the claimant had been in at the Harbour Grace office of the Commission in February. At that time he was not advised that a letter had been sent to him in Hopeall denying his benefits. This is shown on Exhibit 4. It was not therefore eight months as suggested by the Board between the time the letter was sent to him and when the claimant attempted to appeal. The claimant had not received the letter in January, had visited the Commission's office in February and the claimant did visit the office of the Commission but was not advised that his letter was sent to the wrong address.
Having considered these circumstances I am satisfied that even though there was a delay in this matter, the delay was not caused by the claimant. Most people realize that sometimes decisions from government take considerable length of time. For example, when someone files their income tax return, they may get a reply back within the matter of a month. In other cases, it may be three months or more. Similarly, when one makes an inquiry with respect to any department, it may take some time before a decision is made and a reply received.
In these circumstances where the errors are predominantly with the Commission, I am satisfied that the claimant has shown special reasons why he should be allowed to appeal and an extension be granted to his appeal period pursuant to s. 114 of the Act. Applying that section the Commission should have allowed such further time as may have been reasonable with respect to the special reason which would have been when the claimant was notified. In this case, even in Exhibit 7-2, the Board was aware that the claimant visited the office of the Commission in February of 2005 to respond to the message that was left to him by phone. There is no suggestion that he was ever asked about the letter that was sent to the wrong address. Had the Commission sent its letter of January 19, 2005 to his address which was shown on his application, then the claimant would have received it. It was the Commission's error which caused all of the claimant's grief.
For these reasons the appeal of the claimant is allowed.
David G. Riche
Umpire
September 25, 2006
St. John's, NL