CUB 67243

A. Gobeil, Umpire

The Commission appeals from the decision of a Board of Referees overturning its own decision that the claimant's claim for benefits could not be effective March 13, 2005 because she had not established that from March 13, 2005 to August 13, 2005 she had good cause for her delay in filing her claim. Her claim was therefore made effective August 14, 2005.

The Board's decision was based on certain facts, which it expressed as follows:

At the hearing, the appellant stated that she had come to Canada in July 2003. The employment with Cause Canada was her first job. Also, the job was out of the country. She had received no cheque stubs for her earnings. She was not aware that she had been contributing to employment insurance. It was only when she returned to Canada and went to Emploi-Québec that she was sent to the local Canada Employment centre and learned she was supposed to have an ROE. She obtained the record only on August 19, 2005 (Exhibit 3).

And the Board concluded:

Under the circumstances, the Board is of the opinion that the appellant has taken all the actions of a reasonable person. The Board finds that this is an exceptional case and UNANIMOUSLY allows the appeal.

I can find no error of fact or of law in this decision, which seems to me reasonable in light of the specific and exceptional facts in this case.

In support of its arguments, the Commission invokes Daniel Beaudoin, A-341-04, to the effect that good faith and ignorance of the law cannot constitute good cause for antedating a claim for benefits.

It then lists a number of decisions to the effect that exhausting one's savings in searching for work before applying for Employment Insurance benefits, while laudable, does not constitute good cause for delay in claiming benefits.

Finally, the Commission argues that neither was the delay in obtaining the Record of Employment, which she obtained on August 19, 2005, good cause for the claimant's lateness in filing, especially since she took no steps to obtain it sooner.

I consider these allegations and this case law not to be applicable to the instant case, which is quite exceptional.

The evidence shows that the claimant arrived in Canada in July 2003 and that her first job was for Cause Canada, a charitable organization, from September 15, 2004 to March 15, 2005. She was hired as a trainee. The contract was for six months. Prior to that date, the claimant had no work experience in Canada, and hence had no need or obligation to learn the laws applicable to the work situation, including the Employment Insurance Act (emphasis mine).

According to the contract (Exhibit 9-1), her earnings consisted in an allowance of $7,125, payable during her training period in six monthly payments of $1,000 and one final payment of $1,125 after completing her final report to satisfaction. In addition to this were various benefits: accommodation, health insurance coverage, etc.

While she was working she received no pay slips. That she was not concerned about this may connote inexperience or naiveté, but she cannot be criticized for this in the present context.

She did not know whether she was paying an Employment Insurance premium. The Record of Employment indicates the amount of $7,148 as total earnings for the six months of training, which is within a few dollars of the gross earnings that were agreed, and even a little more. Hence there is no indication in that regard. The Commission has established no evidence as to the method of paying the claimant's earnings. In any case, she was totally unaware at the time of the existence of such a system and its conditions. She cannot be criticized for this in her particular context.

Upon her return to the country, given the situation described above, the claimant exhausted her savings in looking for employment. It is important to note that once they ran out, she turned to a provincial agency, Emploi-Québec, rather than the federal agency responsible for the application of Employment Insurance. This illustrates her lack of understanding and ignorance of the remedies at her disposal when she found herself unemployed following her first job outside the country. However, as soon as she became aware of the proper resource to which to apply, she immediately did so.

In this entirely exceptional context, I cannot conclude otherwise than that the claimant acted as an honest and responsible person would do.

The ignorance of the law that can vitiate a claim for benefits implies first of all that we are aware that a law exists, and that being aware of it, neglect to inquire into the rights and obligations that follow from it, when that law concerns us or is liable to concern us because of its relevance to our status.

Furthermore, ignorance of the law must not arise from indifference, personal negligence, lack of will or carelessness with respect to the law, but from an exceptional situation such as permits and explains that ignorance. How can a young person, a new immigrant, who is offered a first job, and what is more one that is outside the country, be held responsible in this context in the matter before us, for not knowing the rights and obligations that are hers under the Employment Insurance Act?

This is the situation in which the Board of Referees considered the claimant to be, and it is as a result of this situation that she had good cause for delay in filing her claim.

In consequence of the preceding, I conclude that the decision of the Board of Referees is reasonable and free of errors of fact and of law.

Therefore, the Commission's appeal is dismissed.

Albert Gobeil

Umpire

Montreal, Quebec
November 8, 2006