Employment Insurance (EI)

Decision and reasons

Decision

[1] The appeal is dismissed.

Overview

[2] The Appellant, G. D. (Claimant), made an initial application for Employment Insurance benefits. The Respondent, the Canada Employment Insurance Commission [(Commission)], informed him that he was entitled to Employment Insurance benefits, and a benefit period was established. However, the Claimant never filed the necessary reports so that he could receive benefits.

[3] About one year after his benefit period had been established, the Claimant asked the Commission to antedate his benefits application. The Commission determined that the Claimant did not have good cause for his delay. The Claimant requested a reconsideration of that decision because he had never received the access code he needed to complete his reports. The Commission maintained its initial decision. The Claimant appealed the reconsideration decision to the General Division of the Social Security Tribunal.

[4] The General Division determined that even if the Claimant did not receive his access code, he had opportunities to ask the Commission relevant questions about it. It found that a reasonable person would have contacted the Commission without delay to obtain their access code. The General Division found that there were no exceptional circumstances preventing the Claimant from asking about his rights and obligations during the delay.

[5] The Tribunal granted leave to appeal. The Claimant argues that the General Division made an error of law in its interpretation of section 10(5) of the Employment Insurance Act (EI Act). He submits that the Commission’s failure to provide him with an access code constitutes grounds for his delay in producing his reports because, without an access code, he could not submit any reports.

[6] The Tribunal must decide whether the General Division erred in its interpretation of section 10(5) of the EI Act.

[7] The Tribunal dismisses the Claimant’s appeal.

Issue

[8] Did the General Division make an error in its interpretation of section 10(5) of the EI Act because the Claimant never received the access code he needed to submit his reports?

Analysis

The Appeal Division’s mandate

[9] The Federal Court of Appeal has determined that the Appeal Division’s mandate is conferred to it by sections 55 to 69 of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act.^{Footnote 1}

[10] The Appeal Division acts as an administrative appeal tribunal for decisions rendered by the General Division. It does not exercise a superintending power similar to that exercised by a higher court.

[11] Therefore, unless the General Division failed to observe a principle of natural justice, erred in law, or based its decision on an erroneous finding of fact that it had made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it, the Tribunal must dismiss the appeal.

Issue: Did the General Division make an error in its interpretation of section 10(5) of the EI Act because the Claimant never received the access code he needed to submit his reports?

[12] Section 10(5) of the EI Act states that a claim for benefits made after the time prescribed for making the claim will be regarded as having been made on an earlier day if the claimant shows that there was good cause for the delay throughout the period beginning on the earlier day and ending on the day when the claim was made.

[13] To establish good cause under section 10(5) of the EI Act, a claimant must be able to show that they did what a reasonable person in their situation would have done to ask about their rights and obligations under the EI Act. The Federal Court of Appeal has reaffirmed on numerous occasions that claimants have a duty to ask about their rights and obligations, as well as the steps that should be taken to protect a claim for benefits.

[14] The General Division found that a reasonable person would have contacted the Commission promptly to get their access code. The General Division found that there were no exceptional circumstances preventing the Claimant from asking about his rights and obligations during the delay.

[15] The Claimant argues that the General Division made an error of law in its interpretation of section 10(5) of the EI Act. He submits that the Commission’s failure to provide him with an access code constitutes grounds for the delay in submitting his reports because, without an access code, he could not submit his reports. He argues that the Commission breached the principles of natural justice or procedural fairness because he never received the access code he needed to submit his reports.

[16] When he filed his claim for Employment Insurance benefits starting December 15, 2015, the Claimant was informed of the next steps. He was informed that he would receive a benefit statement with an access code so that he could submit his reports.^{Footnote 2}

[17] The Claimant testified that the Commission informed him on January 13, 2016, that he was entitled to Employment Insurance regular benefits.

[18] Furthermore, the Claimant’s statement in support of his reconsideration request explains that a Commission agent told him that his application had been accepted between February and March 2016. The agent also told him that if he did not receive benefits soon and if he was delayed in filing, he would need to go to his local office instead of submitting a new application.^{Footnote 3}

[19] Despite knowing this important information, the Claimant still waited until January 2017, about 10 months later, to contact the Commission.

[20] It is true that the Claimant should have received an access code from the Commission. However, as the General Division decided, not having a code did not prevent the Claimant from contacting the Commission before January 2017. Furthermore, the Claimant’s desire to find employment rather than to submit an application for benefits, while admirable, is not good cause for delaying the completion of reports.

[21] After considering all the evidence submitted to the General Division, the Tribunal finds that the General Division did not err when it found that the Claimant did not act as a reasonable and prudent person would have done in the same situation to ask about their rights and obligations and to take the steps required to protect their claim for benefits under the EI Act.

[22] After considering all the evidence, including the appeal docket, the parties’ submissions, the applicable jurisprudence, and the General Division decision, the Tribunal finds that there is no evidence to support either of the grounds of appeal the Claimant invoked or any other possible ground of appeal.

[23] The Tribunal must therefore dismiss the appeal.

Conclusion

[24] The appeal is dismissed.