Employment Insurance (EI)

Decision

[1] The appeal is dismissed.

Overview

[2] C. W.’s (Claimant) former employer dismissed him. The Claimant received advice that a person who was dismissed with cause would not be likely to receive employment insurance benefits. Because of this advice, the Claimant assumed that he would not receive employment insurance benefits and did not apply for benefits. About seven months later, when he started a new job, his human resources advisor told him that he should have applied for benefits when he stopped working. The Claimant applied for employment insurance benefits and asked the Canada Employment Insurance Commission (Commission) to backdate, or antedate, his initial claim to his last day of work. The Commission determined that the Claimant did not have good cause for his delay in applying and refused his antedate request. The Claimant requested a reconsideration and the Commission maintained its initial decision. The Claimant appealed to the Social Security Tribunal (Tribunal).

[3] I find that the Claimant has not proven that he had good cause for his delay. I find that he has not proven that he acted as a reasonable person in his situation would have done because he did not ask for advice about his own situation; rather, he relied on advice about a hypothetical situation. I find that, without good cause, the Claimant’s initial claim cannot be antedated to his last day of work.

Issues

• Issue 1 – Does the Claimant have good cause for his delay in applying for employment insurance benefits?
• Issue 2 – Does the Claimant qualify for benefits on the earlier date?

Analysis

[4] In order to receive employment insurance benefits, a claimant must make an initial claim for benefits by applying for employment insurance benefits.

[5] A claimant can request an antedate; that is to say, a claimant can ask the Commission to start the initial claim on an earlier date. However, the Commission will only antedate, or backdate, the initial claim if the claimant qualifies for benefits on the earlier date and if the claimant shows that they have good cause for the entire period of the delay. The claimant has to meet both conditions to qualify for an antedate.^{Footnote 1}

[6] In order to prove that they have good cause for the delay, the claimant must prove that they acted as a reasonable person in the same situation would have done to satisfy themselves of their rights and obligations under the Employment Insurance Act. The claimant must show that they had good cause throughout the entire period of the delay.^{Footnote 2} Unless there are exceptional circumstances, the claimant must show that they took reasonably prompt steps to understand their obligations under the Employment Insurance Act.^{Footnote 3}

Issue 1: Does the Claimant have good cause for his delay in applying for employment insurance benefits?

[7] I find that the Claimant has not proven that he has good cause for his delay. I find that he has not proven that he acted as a reasonable person in a similar situation would have done to understand his rights under the Employment Insurance Act.

[8] The Claimant has consistently provided the same explanation for his delay. He stated, to the Commission and to the Tribunal, that he delayed applying for employment insurance benefits because of his inexperience with the employment insurance scheme. He stated that he had never been dismissed from a job before and that he found the situation stressful and difficult to talk about. He testified that he described his situation in hypothetical terms to an acquaintance with human resources experience and also to a Service Canada representative. He testified that both people told him that it was unlikely that a person terminated with cause would receive employment insurance benefits. However, he acknowledged that neither his acquaintance nor the Service Canada representative told him that it would be impossible to receive benefits in the case of dismissal. Indeed, the Claimant acknowledged, in conversation with the Commission, that the Service Canada representative told him that the Commission would make the final decision about entitlement.

[9] The Claimant testified that he had also had a child during the period of his delay and that it was busy and stressful helping his wife and caring for his newborn child.

[10] I accept that the Claimant was embarrassed about the loss of his job, and I also accept that he did not have experience with the employment insurance program. However, I give weight to the fact that the Service Canada representative told him that the Commission makes the final decision about entitlement.

[11] I find that a reasonable person in a similar situation would have asked directly for advice about their rights and obligations under the Employment Insurance Act, rather than describing a hypothetical situation. The duty of care expected from prospective employment insurance claimants is demanding and strict,^{Footnote 4} and I find that the Claimant has not proven that he acted as a reasonable person would have done. Furthermore, I accept that the Claimant was busy with his newborn child. However, I am not satisfied that this constitutes exceptional circumstances. As a result, I find that the Claimant has not proven that he had good cause for his delay.

Issue 2: Does the Claimant qualify for benefits on the earlier date?

[12] The Commission did not make any submissions on the issue of whether the Claimant qualifies for benefits on the earlier date. However, the Claimant must show both that he had good cause for his delay and that he qualifies for benefits on the earlier date in order to receive an antedate. As I have already found that he does not have good cause for his delay, I will not consider whether he has enough hours to qualify for benefits on the earlier date.

Conclusion

[13] The appeal is dismissed.