(c) The Test for " Good Cause "
The most frequent issue arising in antedate cases, is whether a claimant has established "good cause" for the delay in filing their claim.
In order to establish "good cause" a claimant must demonstrate that he or she did what a reasonable and prudent person would have done in the same circumstances, either to clarify the situation regarding their employment or to determine their rights and obligations under the Act. Each case must be judged on its own facts and to this extent no clear and easily applicable principle exists.
Canada (A.G.) v. Albrecht, [1985] 1 F.C. 710 (F.C.A.) A-172-85
Canada (A.G.) v. Caron, [1986] F.C.J. No.85 (F.C.A.) A-395-85
Canada (A.G.) v. Smith, [1993] 3 F.C. D-10 (F.C.A.) A-549-92
Canada (A.G.) v. Ehman, February 9, 1996, F.C.J. No. 179 (F.C.A.) A-360-95
Malitsky v. Canada (A.G.) , September 3, 1997, F.C.J. No. 1136 (F.C.A.) A-205-96
Canada (A.G.) v. Carry , [2005] F.C.J. N0 1850 (F.C.A.) A-242-05
In order to demonstrate good cause, it is not necessary for a claimant to show that there were circumstances over which he or she had no control and which prevented them from making a claim at an earlier date. The correct test is whether the claimant can demonstrate that he or she did what a reasonable and prudent person would have done in the same circumstances.
Hamilton v. Canada (A.G.) [1988], F.C.J. No. 269 (F.C.A.) A-175-87
Canada (A.G.) v. Ehman, February 9, 1996, F.C.J. No. 179 (F.C.A.) A-360-95
In addition, good cause may also include circumstances in which it is reasonable for a claimant to consciously delay in making a claim for benefits.
Canada (A.G.) v. Gauthier, October 9, 1984 (F.C.A.) A-1789-83
What constitutes good cause is always a question of fact.
Hamilton v. Canada (A.G.),[1988] F.C.J. No. 269 (F.C.A.) A-175-87
[ previous | table of contents | next ]
2009-04-28