Employment Insurance (EI)

Decision

[1] The appeal is dismissed. I find that the refusal of the Canada Employment Insurance Commission (Commission) to extend the 30-day period to request a reconsideration is justified.^{Footnote 1}

Overview

[2] On September 29, 2020, the Appellant requested a reconsideration of a decision made by the Commission on March 29, 2010.^{Footnote 2}

[3] On October 8, 2020, the Commission informed him that, when he filed his reconsideration request, more than 30 days had passed since he had received the decision against him. This decision was sent to him on March 29, 2010. The Commission also told him that the reasons he had given it to justify his late request did not meet the requirements of the Reconsideration Request Regulations. It told him that, as a result, it would not reconsider his decision.^{Footnote 3}

[4] The Appellant explains that he requested a reconsideration of the Commission’s March 29, 2010, decision after the deadline to do so had passed because he did not know he could be eligible to receive benefits for health reasons. He argues that his health condition had prevented him from requesting a reconsideration within the time allowed to do so. The Appellant says that he learned that he could receive benefits if he had stopped working for medical reasons by looking at the Employment Insurance website (Service Canada). According to the Appellant, the Commission did not consider the fact that he requested a reconsideration late because of his health condition. On October 15, 2020, the Appellant challenged the Commission’s October 8, 2020, decision before the Tribunal. That decision is now being appealed to the Tribunal.

Issue

[5] I have to determine whether the Commission’s refusal to extend the 30-day period to request a reconsideration is justified.^{Footnote 4}

Analysis

[6] A claimant or other person who is the subject of a decision of the Commission can make a request to the Commission in the prescribed form and manner for a reconsideration of that decision at any time within 30 days after the day on which a decision is communicated to them.^{Footnote 5}

[7] The Commission may allow a longer period to make a request for reconsideration of a decision if the Commission is satisfied that there is a reasonable explanation for requesting a longer period and the person has demonstrated a continuing intention to request a reconsideration.^{Footnote 6}

[8] The Commission must also be satisfied that the request for reconsideration has a reasonable chance of success, and that no prejudice would be caused to the Commission or a party by allowing a longer period to make the request, if the request for reconsideration (a) is made after the 365-day period after the day on which the decision was communicated to the person; (b) is made by a person who submitted another application for benefits after the decision was communicated to the person; or (c) is made by a person who has requested the Commission to rescind or amend the decision under section 111 of the Employment Insurance Act.^{Footnote 7}

[9] I note that, given the issue raised in this file, my role is limited to determining whether the Commission exercised its discretion judicially when it refused the Appellant’s request to extend the 30-day period to request a reconsideration.^{Footnote 8}

[10] The Federal Court of Appeal (Court) has established the principle that there is no reason to intervene in discretionary decisions of the Commission, unless it did not exercise its discretion judicially.^{Footnote 9}

[11] The Court has also defined “judicially” as acting in good faith, having regard to all the relevant factors and ignoring any irrelevant factors.^{Footnote 10}

[12] The Federal Court confirmed that the Commission’s decision on an extension of time to request a reconsideration is a discretionary decision.^{Footnote 11}

[13] The Commission explains that the Appellant was aware of its decision of March 29, 2010, and he waited until September 29, 2020, to request a reconsideration.^{Footnote 12}

[14] The Commission indicates that it found that the Appellant had not provided a reasonable explanation to justify his delay in requesting a reconsideration or demonstrated a continuing intention to do so.^{Footnote 13}

[15] The Commission explains that the second test under section 1(2) of the Reconsideration Request Regulations was therefore not applied.^{Footnote 14} This test states that the Commission must also be satisfied that the request for reconsideration has a reasonable chance of success, and that no prejudice would be caused to the Commission or a party by allowing a longer period to make the request.^{Footnote 15}

[16] The Commission argues that there was nothing preventing the Appellant from doing his research on the Employment Insurance website (Service Canada) earlier or from trying to contact the appropriate authority to find out how Employment Insurance works. According to the Commission, the explanation the Appellant provided is therefore not reasonable.^{Footnote 16}

[17] The Commission explains that the Appellant’s file also shows that he had not demonstrated a continuing intention to request a reconsideration. The Commission points out that the Appellant waited 10 years to make his request for reconsideration.^{Footnote 17}

[18] The Commission submits that it exercised its discretion when it refused the Appellant’s request to extend the 30-day period to request a reconsideration because all the relevant circumstances were considered when it refused his delay in making his request.^{Footnote 18}

[19] The Appellant explains that he applied for benefits on November 23, 2009, after voluntarily leaving his job on October 18, 2009.^{Footnote 19}

[20] On March 29, 2010, the Commission informed him that it could not pay him Employment Insurance regular benefits as of October 18, 2009, because he had voluntarily left his job without just cause under the Act.^{Footnote 20}

[21] The Appellant explained that he did not remember the exact date the Commission’s March 29, 2010, decision was communicated to him. In his October 7, 2020, statement to the Commission, the Appellant said he had received the Commission’s decision on or around March 29, 2010.^{Footnote 21}

[22] The Appellant explains that he left his job for medical reasons. He says that, when he left his job, he had mental health problems.^{Footnote 22}

[23] On September 25, 2020, the Appellant presented medical evidence indicating that he had become unable to work because of his mental health condition as of October 21, 2009, and that he did not return to work after October 2009.^{Footnote 23} After leaving his job, the Appellant moved to British Columbia.^{Footnote 24} He returned to Quebec around February 2010.

[24] The Appellant explains that, when he applied for benefits in November 2009, and when the Commission made its decision in March 2010, he did not know he could be entitled to benefits for medical reasons. He notes that he did not know the Employment Insurance entitlement rules. The Appellant says that he did not know that voluntary leaving could be justified for health reasons.^{Footnote 25}

[25] The Appellant explains that, in 2020, several years after the Commission made its March 2010 decision, he looked at the Employment Insurance website (Service Canada) after realizing, while filing his documents, that he had not received benefits after his voluntary leaving in October 2009.^{Footnote 26} He explains that, when he looked at this website, he learned that benefits could be paid to a person who had left their job for medical reasons. The Appellant says that his delay in requesting a reconsideration can be explained by a lack of information and the complexity of the situation.^{Footnote 27}

[26] It was after looking at the Employment Insurance website that the Appellant started the process to challenge the March 29, 2010, decision. He made his request for reconsideration on September 29, 2020.^{Footnote 28}

[27] In his October 7, 2020, statement to the Commission, the Appellant indicated that his health condition had not prevented him from filing an application for administrative review. He then said that he did not know his rights and that he had only recently done research to that effect. The Appellant also said that his health condition was essentially the same as it had been in October 2009.^{Footnote 29}

[28] At the hearing, and in a written argument sent to the Tribunal on November 6 and 9, 2020, the Appellant argued that his health condition had prevented him from requesting a reconsideration on time, despite the opposite conclusion the Commission reached.^{Footnote 30}

[29] The Appellant explains that, when he applied for benefits in November 2009, and when the Commission made its decision in March 2010, he did not find out about his rights, given his health condition.^{Footnote 31} He figured that that was the decision that had been made and that it meant he was not entitled to benefits. The Appellant explains that he had not made the connection between his illness and his entitlement to sickness benefits. He thought that that was the law and that it was not possible for him to challenge the Commission’s decision. The Appellant believed that his situation was a lost cause given his voluntary leaving, and he abandoned the idea of requesting a reconsideration.^{Footnote 32}

[30] The Appellant argues that, even though he answered “no” to the Commission’s question asking him whether his health condition had prevented him from requesting a reconsideration,^{Footnote 33} he did not feel well enough to do his own research on the Employment Insurance website.^{Footnote 34} He notes that he should have answered “yes” to that question.^{Footnote 35}

[31] The Appellant explains that, even though he indicated in his October 7, 2020, statement to the Commission that his health condition was essentially the same as it had been in 2009,^{Footnote 36} that is not the case.^{Footnote 37} He says that, when the Commission made its decision in March 2010, he felt confused and had difficulty concentrating.^{Footnote 38} The Appellant explains that the lack of responsibility he had at that time was a symptom of his illness.^{Footnote 39}

[32] The Appellant explains that, if he had been in full possession of his mental and psychological capacities, he would have been able to use all the tools at his disposal in looking at the Employment Insurance website to request a reconsideration and argue his entitlement to benefits.^{Footnote 40} He notes that someone who has all their mental capacities would be able to assume their responsibilities, including applying for benefits after losing their job.^{Footnote 41}

[33] The Appellant argues that he is managing his responsibilities better now than he was when the Commission made its decision in March 2010.^{Footnote 42}

[34] According to the Appellant, the Commission did not consider the fact that he did not request a reconsideration earlier because of his health condition.^{Footnote 43}

[35] In this case, the evidence shows that the Appellant did not respect the 30-day deadline to request a reconsideration of the Commission’s March 29, 2010, decision.^{Footnote 44}

[36] I note that, despite the Appellant’s claim of not remembering the exact date the Commission’s March 29, 2010, decision was communicated to him, I find that it was on that date that he was informed of it. I note that, in that decision, the Commission specified that the date on which he was verbally informed of the decision was March 29, 2010, and that he had 30 days after that date to file an appeal in writing.^{Footnote 45}

[37] I find that the Appellant did not give a reasonable explanation that could justify his delay in requesting a reconsideration of the Commission’s March 29, 2010, decision.

[38] I find the Appellant’s statements about the reasons for his delay in making this request contradictory.

[39] In statements made to the Commission on September 29, 2020, and October 7, 2020, the Appellant explained that he had not thought that his voluntary leaving could be justified for medical reasons or that he could receive benefits for medical reasons. He said it was when he looked at the Employment Insurance website that he learned he could be entitled to benefits for medical reasons.^{Footnote 46} On October 7, 2020, the Appellant also stated that his health condition had not prevented him from requesting an administrative review. He also said that his health condition was essentially the same as it had been in October 2009.^{Footnote 47}

[40] Then, after receiving an unfavourable decision from the Commission, and after seeing its arguments explaining its refusal to grant him additional time to request a reconsideration, the Appellant argued that his health condition had prevented him from making that request.

[41] After saying the opposite, the Appellant submits that his health condition when he requested a reconsideration, on September 29, 2020, was different from the heath condition he was in when the Commission made its decision on March 29, 2010.

[42] I put the most weight on the Appellant’s initial statements to the Commission that his health condition had not prevented him from requesting a reconsideration and that, when he made this request in September 2020, his health condition was essentially the same as it had been in October 2009.

[43] The Court tells us that we must give more weight to initial, spontaneous statements, than to subsequent statements, when the Commission renders an unfavourable decision.^{Footnote 48}

[44] I find that the Appellant’s health condition did not prevent him from requesting a reconsideration of the decision made against him on March 29, 2010, even if medical reasons were behind his voluntary leaving.

[45] I note that, despite the medical diagnosis indicating that he was unable to work for health reasons as of October 21, 2009,^{Footnote 49} the Appellant was able to apply for benefits on November 23, 2009.^{Footnote 50}

[46] I am of the view that, in this context, despite his health condition, the Appellant was able to respond to the Commission’s March 29, 2010, decision within the time allowed to do so.

[47] I find that the changes the Appellant made to his version of events to indicate that his health condition was not the same when he requested a reconsideration in September 2020 as it had been 10 years earlier, cannot be used as a reasonable explanation for his delay in making that request.

[48] I find that, at the hearing, the Appellant provided no new information in that regard.

[49] I agree with the Commission’s finding that the Appellant has not provided a reasonable explanation for his delay in requesting a reconsideration.

[50] I find that the Appellant also has not demonstrated that he had a continuing intention to request a reconsideration of the March 29, 2010, decision.

[51] The Appellant’s explanations indicate that, after receiving the decision, he did not think that he could challenge it and he abandoned the idea.

[52] The Appellant’s explanations also demonstrate that it was not until 10 years after the decision was made that he learned, by looking at the Employment Insurance website, that he could request a reconsideration and that he started the process to do so.

[53] I find that the Commission properly assessed that the Appellant had not demonstrated a continuing intention to request a reconsideration of the March 29, 2010, decision, noting that he had waited 10 years to make this request.

[54] I am of the view that the Commission exercised its discretion judicially when it refused the Appellant’s request to extend the 30-day period to request a reconsideration because it considered all the relevant circumstances when it refused his delay in making his request.

[55] I find that, in making its decision, the Commission considered all the relevant factors and ignored irrelevant factors.

[56] I find that the factors referring to the Appellant’s health condition, when he received the decision made against him on March 29, 2010, are relevant factors that the Commission considered. The Commission considered the Appellant’s initial statements indicating that, when he requested a reconsideration in September 2020, his health condition was similar to what it had been in October 2009, when he stopped working.

[57] Because I give little weight to the Appellant’s explanations about the change in his version of events regarding his health condition, I find that his explanations are irrelevant factors that the Commission did not need to consider.

[58] I also find that the Appellant has failed to show that the Commission relied on irrelevant factors when it refused to extend the 30-day period to request a reconsideration.

[59] I find that the Commission exercised its discretion judicially when it refused the Appellant an extension of time to request a reconsideration.

Conclusion

[60] I find that the Commission’s refusal to extend the 30-day period to request a reconsideration is justified.

[61] The appeal is dismissed.