Employment Insurance (EI)
Decision Information
Employment Insurance – backdated or late weekly benefit claim – must show good cause for whole late period
The Claimant filed his weekly claims for employment insurance (EI) regular benefits late for the period of December 7, 2020 to February 19, 2021 on February 19, 2021. When filing a late weekly claim, the law requires a claimant has to show they had “good cause” or a valid reason for filing late – for the whole period they are late. In this case, the Claimant had to show he had good cause for filing late from December 7, 2020 to February 19, 2021. The Commission rejected his application. The Claimant appealed to the General Division (GD).
The GD granted the Claimant’s appeal in part. The GD found his reason was that he believed he would return to the employer that dismissed him. He thought his dismissal was a misunderstanding and believed he would return to his previous job. His former employer was taking action to return him to the job, and the Claimant was waiting to know the date he would return to work. The employer and the Claimant signed an agreement on January 28, 2021 for him to return to work. The Claimant then waited and applied late for his benefits on March 2, 2021. The GD found the Claimant had good cause for the period up to January 28, 2021. It found he did not have good cause from January 29, 2021 to February 19, 2021.
The Commission appealed the GD decision to the Appeal Division (AD). The AD found the GD made a mistake in applying the law. Section 10(5) of the Employment Insurance Act requires a claimant to prove he had good cause to “backdate” his claim for the entire period it is late. In this case, the GD allowed him to get benefits for about half the late period. The GD misunderstood and misapplied the law. The AD then made the decision the GD should have and found the Claimant did not have good cause for the delay after February 19, 2021. Because he could not show he had good cause for being late for part of the period, the law didn’t forgive the whole late period. The AD granted the Commission’s appeal; this means the Claimant wasn’t allowed any benefits for the period of December 7, 2020 to February 19, 2021.
Decision Content
[TRANSLATION]
Citation: Canada Employment Insurance Commission v PT, 2021 SST 532
Social Security Tribunal of Canada
Appeal Division
Decision
| Appellant: | Canada Employment Insurance Commission |
| Representative: | Anick Dumoulin |
| Respondent: | P. T. |
| Decision under appeal: | General Division decision dated July 2, 2021 (GE-21-947) |
| Tribunal member: | Pierre Lafontaine |
| Type of hearing: | Teleconference |
| Hearing date: | September 29, 2021 |
| Hearing participants: | Appellant’s representative Respondent |
| Decision date: | October 4, 2021 |
| File number: | AD-21-250 |
On this page
Decision
[1] The appeal is allowed.
Overview
[2] The Respondent (Claimant) was late in submitting his reports to get Employment Insurance (EI) benefits. He then asked that the reports be treated as though they had been submitted earlier, on December 7, 2020.
[3] The Canada Employment Insurance Commission (Commission) decided that the Claimant did not have good cause for the delay for the period from December 7, 2020, to February 19, 2021, and that, as a result, he was not entitled to EI benefits.
[4] The Claimant requested a reconsideration of that decision, but the Commission upheld its initial decision. The Claimant appealed the reconsideration decision to the General Division.
[5] The General Division allowed the Claimant’s appeal in part. It found that the Claimant had shown good cause for the delay in submitting his reports until January 28, 2021. However, it found that the Claimant had not shown good cause for the delay in submitting his reports for the rest of the period, from January 29 to February 19, 2021.
[6] The Commission was granted leave to appeal the General Division decision. It argues that the General Division made an error of law when it found that the Claimant’s reports could be considered as having been submitted on an earlier day.
[7] I have to decide whether the General Division made an error when it found that the Claimant’s reports could be considered as having been submitted on an earlier day.
Issue
[8] Did the General Division make an error when it found that the Claimant’s reports could be considered as having been submitted on an earlier day?
Analysis
Appeal Division’s mandate
[9] The Federal Court of Appeal has established 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 made by the General Division and does not exercise a superintending power similar to that exercised by a higher court.
[11] So, unless the General Division failed to observe a principle of natural justice, made an error of law, or based its decision on an erroneous finding of fact that it made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it, I must dismiss the appeal.
Did the General Division make an error when it found that the Claimant’s reports could be considered as having been submitted on an earlier day?
[12] The Commission argues that the General Division made an error of law by allowing the Claimant’s appeal in part because the part of the period for which the Claimant had good cause was before the part of the delay for which good cause did not exist. It submits that the General Division should have denied the Claimant’s request.
[13] A report that is submitted after the deadline must be considered as having been submitted 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.Footnote 2
[14] The period of the delay is from December 7, 2020, to February 19, 2021.
[15] The General Division found that the Claimant had shown good cause for the delay in submitting his reports from December 7, 2020, to January 28, 2021. However, it found that the Claimant had not shown good cause for the delay in submitting his reports for the rest of the period, from January 29 to February 19, 2021. It allowed the Claimant’s appeal in part.
[16] In my view, the General Division made an error of law by allowing the appeal in part after finding that the Claimant had not shown that he had good cause for delaying his reports for the period that was immediately before the day when the antedate request was filed.
[17] An antedate request must be denied when the good cause for part of the delay disappears over time after that period. The situation is different when the reason given applies to only part of the antedate period, and that part was immediately before the antedate request. In such a case, the request can be allowed to that limited extent.
[18] This means that I should intervene.
Remedy
[19] Since the Claimant had the opportunity to present his case before the General Division, and this appeal raises an issue of interpretation of the law, I will give the decision that the General Division should have given.Footnote 3
[20] Even though it has been established that the Claimant had good cause for the first part of his delay, it disappeared during the second part of his delay, which was immediately before the day when the antedate request was filed. So, the Claimant has not shown that there was good cause for the delay throughout the entire period between December 7, 2020, and February 19, 2021.
[21] This means that the Claimant’s antedate request should be denied.
Conclusion
[22] The appeal is allowed.
[23] The Claimant’s antedate request is denied.