IN THE MATTER OF THE EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
and
in the matter of a claim for benefit
and
IN THE MATTER of an appeal by the claimant, from a decision of a Board of Referees given at Peterborough, ON, on the 28th day of March, 2006.
DECISION
Hon. David G. Riche
The issue in this case was whether or not the claimant was entitled to an antedate pursuant to s. 10(4) of the EI Act.
The evidence before the Board of Referees was that the claimant established a claim for benefits November 13, 2005. The claimant was issued the information to report for the two week period commencing November 6, 2005 and one week commencing November 20, 2005. The claimant did not try to process his report using the automated telephone reporting service referred to as teledec or use the internet service. The claimant was waiting to receive his report cards. The Commission did not send him report cards.
When the claimant made inquiries he was asked again to file a new claim on February 7, 2006. He then requested that his claim be back dated to November 13, 2005. He again stated that he did not recall getting any mail but somebody did call him to confirm his postal code.
The Commission were of the view that the claimant did not file his reports in a timely manner in accordance with s. 26 of the Regulations. His reasons for being late did not constitute just cause.
When the claimant appeared before the Board of Referees, he was represented by his father. The father explained that his son was not familiar with computers. The Board members explained that the appellant could use reporting cards but would have to request this reporting procedure. The father was not sure whether his son had received any reporting information on his renewal claim.
The majority of the Board found that the claimant did not return his reports in a timely manner and did not show a good cause for delay in accordance with s. 10(5) of the EI Act.
The majority of the Board felt that the claimant did not do what a reasonable person would have done to inquire sooner by contacting the Commission regarding his benefits.
The claimant in a letter received by the Commission in March of 2006 stated: "I am writing to inform you that I started to file a claim for employment insurance around the end of November. I went to Human Resources in Lindsay and was told to file on line. I was then called by to double check my postal code. After waiting a few weeks I heard nothing. I therefore repeated the process going to Human Resources in Lindsay and filing again. I am thinking that there has to be some record of my first filing since I was contacted by phone regarding my postal code."
The minority decision stated that the claimant advised in Exhibit 6 that he did not recall receiving anything in the mail. The claimant's father advised that he was not aware of any mail being received from Service Canada by his son. The minority member was of the opinion that the antedate should be allowed to November 13, 2005. The minority member found that the claimant was confused about the steps he was required to take and did not receive the initial instructions. His action of returning to the Lindsay office in February to inquire about the status of claim supports this. He should not be penalized because of his inexperience with modern technology.
I have considered this matter and have considered the presentation made before me by the claimant and counsel for the Commission. There is no evidence that the claimant was sent reporting cards to report as required. It appears that the office in Lindsay requested that the claimant report online. The claimant was not experienced with this use of the internet and was not familiar with computers.
Having considered this matter, I am satisfied that the minority decision should be the decision that is maintained. It is my view that it is not sufficient for Service Canada to require all applicants to report either by using the internet or by using the teledec system. The system of report cards has been in use for a great number of years and although it may be more convenient for Service Canada, it may not be convenient for claimants who do not have the knowledge or education required to report in that manner.
It is my view that there is an obligation on the EI system to do its utmost to assist claimants so that they can properly report their activities as required when they are on claim. Once the application was made in this case, it is incumbent upon the Commission to see to it that the claimant had a choice between report cards, teledec or computer to make his reports. The fact that the claimant did not receive the report cards and was only asked for his postal code leads me to believe that Service Canada failed to properly assist this young claimant in his quest for benefits.
For these reasons I am satisfied that the decision of the majority be set aside and the decision of the minority approved. The appeal of the claimant is, therefore, allowed and the decision of the Commission and the majority of the Board of Referees set aside.
David G. Riche
UMPIRE
September 14, 2007
St. John's, NL