Employment Insurance (EI)

Issue 1: Was the Claimant’s request made outside of the 30-day limit in which to make a reconsideration request?

[9] Yes.

[10] The Claimant did not make his request for reconsideration within 30-days of the Commission communicating its decision to him.

[11] The Claimant applied for regular employment insurance benefits on December 7, 2018. The Commission denied the Claimant’s application. The Claimant admits that the Commission communicated its decision to him on January 10, 2019. The Claimant requested that the Commission reconsider its decision by a Request for Consideration dated June 4, 2019 that Service Canada received on June 5, 2019.

[12] As the Commission communicated its decision to the Claimant on January 10, 2019, the Claimant had 30 days from then to request a reconsideration of that decision. I find that the Claimant did not request a reconsideration within the 30-day limit. The Claimant’s request for reconsideration was late.

Issue 2: Did the Commission exercise its discretion in a judicial manner in denying the Claimant’s request to extend the 30-day limit?

[13] Yes.

[14] The Commission exercised its discretion judicially when it declined to extend the 30-day limit for the Claimant to file his request for reconsideration.

[15] The Claimant submits that the explanation for his delay in requesting a reconsideration of the Commission’s decision was because he believed that the Commission had approved him when they subsequently approved for other benefits (sickness benefits). The Claimant testified that it was his belief that the Commission’s approval of his sickness benefits meant that they had also approved his regular benefits. The Claimant’s belief is despite his admission that he did receive the Commission’s denial of his application for regular benefits.

[16] The Claimant further submits that he did not request the reconsideration of the Commission’s decision until he became aware that he would not continue to receive benefits. The Claimant received sickness benefits until April 6, 2019. He requested the reconsideration on June 5, 2019. The Claimant’s explanation for this delay is that he was not in his right state of mind due to his mental illness.

[17] The Claimant testified that his mental health had declined before the Commission approved his application for sickness benefits. The Claimant’s doctor prescribed him medication in February of 2019 and told him not to work. The Claimant’s doctor eventually told the Claimant that he could return to work in late April or early May of 2019.

[18] The Commission decided that the Claimant’s explanations for his delay were not reasonable. The Commission considered the Claimant’s explanation of his belief that his regular benefits would continue after his sickness benefits and the explanation of the Claimant’s mental state. The Commission also considered that the Claimant had visited Service Canada several times while receiving sickness benefits and had been able to file a sickness benefit claim.

[19] The Commission also decided that the Claimant did not demonstrate a continuing intention to request a reconsideration. The Commission considered the delay between when the Claimant received the Commission’s decision and when the Claimant made his reconsideration request. The Commission considered that the Claimant had been in contact with Service Canada after he received the decision. Finally, the Commission considered that the Claimant was able to file a request for sickness benefits but not a request for reconsideration.

[20] The Commission was also satisfied that the Claimant’s request for reconsideration did not have reasonable chance of success. The Commission considered the Claimant’s position that he voluntarily left his job because of stress and anxiety. The Commission considered the Claimant’s submissions but was not satisfied that the Claimant had a reasonable chance of success.

[21] Finally, the Commission determined that there would be no prejudice to any party by allowing the Claimant’s requested extension. Despite the Commission’s finding on this one aspect of the legal test ^{Footnote 9}, for the Commission to allow an extension it must be satisfied on all aspects of the test. As stated above, the Commission was not satisfied on all other aspects of the required criteria to permit an extension.

[22] I cannot substitute my decision for that of the Commission unless it did not act judicially. I find that the Commission acted judicially in its decision that the Claimant did not have a reasonable explanation for his delay or a continuing intention to request a reconsideration. There is no evidence before me that the Commission acted in bad faith or for an improper purpose. The Commission took into account the relevant factors and did not take into account any irrelevant factors. The Commission considered the Claimant’s explanation for the delay and his submissions. The Claimant repeated his explanation at the hearing and raised no new evidence or submissions. The Commission did not act in a discriminatory manner. I must show deference to the Commission’s decision and cannot substitute my decision for the Commission’s decision.

[23] I find that the Commission exercised its discretion judicially when it considered the Claimant’s request for an extension of time to file his request for reconsideration. Therefore, I cannot interfere with the Commission’s discretionary decision to refuse the extension of time.

Conclusion

[24] I find that the Commission exercised its discretion to deny the Claimant’s request judicially. This means the appeal is dismissed.