CUB 69941

Max M. Teitelbaum, Umpire

This is an appeal by the claimant from a decision of a Board of Referees rendered on May 10, 2007. The decision was communicated to the claimant on the following day, May 11, 2007. The claimant's appeal to the Umpire from the Board's decision was received by the Commission on October 11, 2007, 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".

Here, after reviewing the material on file, I am satisfied that the appeal period should be extended and the claimant's appeal to the Umpire be allowed to proceed. The claimant has been represented by a financial accounting and income tax specialist throughout all levels of his appeal process and was represented by this individual, in his absence, at the hearing before the Board of Referees. It is clear from the evidence on file, that although the claimant received a copy of the Board's decision at the same time as his representative, he nevertheless believed, and rightly so, that his representative would take the next appropriate step of filing an appeal to the Umpire, as this was clearly the arrangement that had existed between them throughout the appeal process. Subsequent to the Board of Referees decision, the claimant's representative suffered medical problems and due to scheduling, his office closed down for a period of time during the period of delay as well. Once these matters were resolved, the notice of appeal to the Umpire was filed. I also note the representative's letter dated December 7, 2007, wherein he outlines the difficulties he has encountered in speaking to a Commission official about the appeal to the Umpire and the reasons for the delay.

These are circumstances which were beyond the control of the claimant's and, in my view, the proper course is to follow is to allow the appeal to proceed. It is in the interests of justice that the claimant be afforded the opportunity to put his case before the Umpire and given that the delay is of relatively short duration, there will be no prejudice to the Commission by allowing the appeal to proceed.

For these reasons an extension of the sixty-day appeal period is hereby granted.

Max M. Teitelbaum

UMPIRE

OTTAWA, Ontario
February 8, 2008