Employment Insurance (EI)

Decision

[1] The appeal is allowed. The Claimant has shown he had good cause for the delay in applying for benefits. This means the Claimant’s application can be treated as though it was made on May 27, 2018. Furthermore, the Claimant qualified for benefits on May 27, 2018, because he had sufficient insurable hours in his qualifying period to establish a claim.

Overview

[2] The Claimant applied for Employment Insurance (EI) benefits on April 28, 2020. He is now asking that the application be treated as if it was made earlier on May 27, 2018, when his employment ended. The Commission has already refused this request.

[3] I must decide whether the Claimant has proven that he had good cause when he delayed making his application for EI benefits. The Commission says the Claimant did not have good cause because he had recovered from his medical issues in January 2020, but waited another three-months before applying for benefits and made no inquiries with them about applying. The Claimant disagrees and says that even though he made some physical recovery by January 2020, he was still having cognitive problems with process and memory.

Issue

[4] I must decide whether the Claimant’s application for benefits can be treated as if it had been made on May 27, 2018 (this is called antedating the application).

Analysis

[5] Claimants have to prove two things to have an application for benefits antedated:

1. They had good cause for the delay during the whole period of the delay.
2. They qualified for benefits on the earlier day.^{Footnote 1}

[6] To show good cause, the Claimant has to prove that he acted like a reasonable and prudent person would have in similar circumstances.^{Footnote 2} The Claimant has to show this for the entire period of the delay.^{Footnote 3} For the Claimant, the period of delay listed by the Commission is from May 27, 2018, to April 26, 2020. 

[7] The Claimant also has to show that he took reasonably prompt steps to understand his entitlement to benefits and obligations under the law.^{Footnote 4} If the Claimant did not take these steps, then he must show there were exceptional circumstances that explain why he did not do it.^{Footnote 5}

[8] The Claimant has to prove that it is more likely^{Footnote 6} than not that he had good cause.

Did the Claimant have good cause for the whole period of delay?

[9] I find the Claimant had good cause for the whole period of his delay for the following reasons:

[10] First: The Claimant had a serious relapse of his Multiple Sclerosis in July 2019 and still had not recovered cognitively by January 2020. In short, the Claimant has shown exceptional circumstances for not applying for benefits until April 28, 2020, because his Multiple Sclerosis relapse was still affecting his memory and processing ability in the months following January 2020. I realize the Commission submitted the Claimant waited another three-months after he “recovered” in January 2020 and made no inquiries to the Commission about benefits. However, I cannot conclude the Claimant had recovered from his medical condition in January 2020. Although the Claimant confirmed he was more comfortable with the right side of his body in early 2020, his sworn testimony was that he was still having cognitive problems with memory and process.

[11] Second: The Claimant’s testimony about his medical condition after January 2020 was credible because his statements were forthright, detailed, and reasonable. Specifically, the Claimant testified he had memory problems in January 2020 and it never occurred to him to apply for EI benefits. Furthermore, the Claimant explained that he had problems with processing information in January 2020 and still had not recovered cognitively from his relapse six-months earlier.

[12] Third: I accept the Claimant’s testimony that owing to a large severance package from his employer he did not think he could apply for benefits until that severance was exhausted. During the hearing, the Claimant did confirm he had exhausted his severance package in September 2019. However, at that point, the Claimant was just two-months into a serious relapse of his Multiple Sclerosis and this was preventing him from applying for benefits. Furthermore, the Commission recognized the Claimant did have a serious medical condition that affected him. Specifically, the Commission submitted that this medical condition might have prevented the Claimant from inquiring about benefits for a significant period of time (GD4-4).

Further submissions from the Commission

[13] The Commission appeared to accept the Claimant’s argument that before his relapse of Multiple Sclerosis in July 2019 he did not apply for EI benefits owing to his severance package. However, the Commission still maintained that a reasonable person in his situation would have inquired about his rights and responsibilities rather than waiting until almost two-years after his last day of work to inquire about benefits. Nevertheless, I accept the Claimant’s argument that he did not apply for EI benefits prior to his medical relapse in July 2019 because of the substantial severance package from the employer. In other words, I accept that a reasonable person would have done the same thing under similar circumstances.

[14] The Commission did submit that the Claimant had a serious medical condition that might have prevented him from inquiring about EI benefits for a “significant period of time.” Nevertheless, the Commission insisted the Claimant had recovered by January 2020 and then waited other three-months before applying and made no inquiries with them during this time. However, I simply cannot accept the Claimant had recovered cognitively from his medical condition in January 2020. The Claimant had problems with his memory after January 2020 and these problems were exceptional circumstances that prevented him from applying until April 28, 2020. On this matter, the case law is clear that an appreciation of “good cause” necessarily requires an examination of all the circumstances and it would be an error not to consider the Claimant’s medical condition throughout the whole period of his delay.^{Footnote 7}

Did the Claimant qualify for benefits on the earlier day?

[15] I find the Claimant did qualify for benefits on the earlier day based on his Record of Employment listed in GD3-15. Furthermore, the Commission did submit that if the Claimant’s claim for benefits commenced on May 27, 2018 (the week in which his separation from employment occurred) he would have sufficient insurable hours in his qualifying period to establish a claim for benefits (GD4-3).

Conclusion

[16] The appeal is allowed. The Claimant has shown he had good cause for the delay in applying for benefits. This means the Claimant’s application can be treated as though it was made on May 27, 2018. Furthermore, the Claimant qualified for benefits on May 27, 2018.