IN THE MATTER of the EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
- and -
IN THE MATTER of a claim by
ROSE, STACY
- and -
IN THE MATTER of an appeal to an Umpire by the
claimant from a decision by the Board of Referees
given on March 26, 1999, at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.
DECISION
ROULEAU, J.
This is an appeal by the claimant from a decision of a Board of Referees rendered on March 26, 1999. The decision was communicated to the claimant three days later, on March 29, 1999. Ms. Rose's appeal to the Umpire from the Board's decision was received by the Commission on September 1, 1999, which is outside the sixty day appeal period provided for in section 116 of the Employment Insurance Act. That section reads as follows:
116. The appeal must be brought in the prescribed manner within 60 days after the decision is communicated to the person bringing the appeal, or any longer period that the umpire may allow for special reasons.
The jurisprudence has established that "special reasons" for a delay in launching an appeal to the Umpire include compassionate reasons or circumstances which are beyond the claimant's control. However, ignorance of the appeal process, forgetfulness or simple negligence do not constitute "special reasons."
In the present case, the claimant's reasons for the delay are twofold. First, it was her impression upon reading the Board's decision that her appeal had been successful on both the issue of false and misleading statements and the issue of earnings. By the time she discovered that her appeal with respect to earnings had been dismissed, her husband had fallen seriously ill. These two factors together resulted in her appeal being launched outside the time period prescribed by the legislation.
I am satisfied that the claimant's reasons for the delay in filing her appeal to the Umpire disclose compassionate and other grounds which warrant an extension of the appeal period. First, having examined the Board's decision, I can understand how the claimant came to the erroneous conclusion that she had been successful in her appeal on both issues. Furthermore, her husband's illness, which was clearly a contributing factor to the delay, was not something over which she had any control.
For these reasons, I am granting an extension of the sixty day appeal period.
"P. ROULEAU "
UMPIRE
OTTAWA, Ontario
February 23, 2000