Employment Insurance (EI)

Decision

[1] The appeal is dismissed. The Tribunal disagrees with the Appellant.

[2] The Appellant hasn’t shown that he had good cause for the delay in applying for benefits. In other words, the Appellant hasn’t given an explanation that the law accepts. This means that the Appellant’s application can’t be treated as though it was made earlier.^{Footnote 1}

Overview

[3] The Appellant applied for Employment Insurance (EI) benefits on June 13, 2022. He is now asking that the application be treated as though it was made earlier, on February 27, 2022. The Canada Employment Insurance Commission (Commission) has already refused this request.

[4] I have to decide whether the Appellant has proven that he had good cause for not applying for benefits earlier.

[5] The Appellant says that his mental health condition prevented him from applying earlier.

[6] The Commission says that the Appellant didn’t have good cause. It says that he might have been stressed, but without medical evidence, he hasn’t shown that he couldn’t have made proper everyday decisions.^{Footnote 2}

[7] At the hearing, the Appellant gave a medical note showing that he was seen for sleep concerns in 2021. ^{Footnote 3}

Issue

[8] Can the Appellant’s application for benefits be treated as though it was made on February 27, 2022? This is called antedating (or, backdating) the application.

Analysis

[9] To get your application for benefits antedated, you have to prove these two things:^{Footnote 4}

1. a) You had good cause for the delay during the entire period of the delay. In other words, you have an explanation that the law accepts.
2. b) You qualified for benefits on the earlier day (that is, the day you want your application antedated to).

[10] The main arguments in this case are about whether the Appellant had good cause. So, I will start with that.

[11] To show good cause, the Appellant has to prove that he acted as a reasonable and prudent person would have acted in similar circumstances.^{Footnote 5} In other words, he has to show that he acted reasonably and carefully just as anyone else would have if they were in a similar situation.

[12] The Appellant has to show that he acted this way for the entire period of the delay.^{Footnote 6} That period is from the day he wants his application antedated to until the day he actually applied. So, for the Appellant, the period of the delay is from February 27, 2022, to June 13, 2022.

[13] The Appellant also has to show that he took reasonably prompt steps to understand his entitlement to benefits and obligations under the law.^{Footnote 7} This means that the Appellant has to show that he tried to learn about his rights and responsibilities as soon as possible and as best he could. If the Appellant didn’t take these steps, then he must show that there were exceptional circumstances that explain why he didn’t do so.^{Footnote 8}

[14] The Appellant has to prove this on a balance of probabilities. This means that he has to show that it is more likely than not that he had good cause for the delay.

What the Appellant says

[15] The Appellant says that he had good cause for the delay because of the state of his mental health. He explained about the stress he was under because of significant, uninsured damage to his home and related harassing treatment. He explained that he wasn’t capable of making sound decisions. He wasn’t sleeping and couldn’t concentrate. He says he made a huge mistake in selling his home and moving to British Columbia. He told me that he wasn’t capable of making everyday decisions. He gave the example of being unable to book an appointment to give blood, which he has done regularly for years. He says he was fixated on what had happened to him until he got his house back.

[16] The Appellant supplied a medical note that says that he was last seen in 2021 for sleep concerns for which medication was prescribed.

[17] The Appellant also says that:

• after he was laid off from his job, he was trying to find work
• he couldn’t buy another house if he were receiving EI benefits
• he hadn’t applied for EI regular benefits before (only EI parental benefits).

[18] The Appellant pointed out that during the COVID-19 pandemic he worked more, not fewer hours. He’s frustrated that he has paid into the EI system for so many years and when he needed it, the Commission refused to backdate his claim.

What the Commission says

[19] The Commission says that the Appellant hasn’t shown good cause for the delay. The Commission says that a reasonable person in the Appellant’s situation would have applied for EI benefits and would have gone online or called Service Canada to ask about his rights to benefits, and how to go forward.^{Footnote 9}

[20] The Commission agrees that the Appellant was likely stressed, but it says that the evidence doesn’t show that he was so unwell that he couldn’t make proper, everyday decisions.^{Footnote 10}

My findings

[21] I find that the Appellant hasn’t proven that he had good cause for the delay in applying for benefits.

[22] I find that a reasonable and prudent person in the Appellant’s circumstances would have made efforts to find out about his entitlement to EI benefits shortly after he lost his job. A reasonable and prudent person would have done this by looking online, or by calling or visiting a Service Canada Centre. The Appellant didn’t take these steps, so it can’t be said he acted as a reasonable and prudent person.^{Footnote 11}

[23] I find that the Appellant didn’t take reasonably prompt steps to find out about his entitlement to EI benefits. He didn’t make any efforts during the period of delay to find out more from Service Canada about his entitlement to EI benefits.

[24] I find that there are no exceptional circumstances that explain why he didn’t take reasonably prompt steps. I understand that he was having a difficult time. Anyone in the Appellant’s circumstances would be stressed. But his circumstances are not exceptional. He was capable of selling his home and moving to British Columbia. Although he says these were bad decisions, he was still capable of making them and following through. So, it’s likely he was capable of looking into his entitlement to EI benefits and following through with an application.

[25] Delaying because you’re looking for work is not an exceptional circumstance. Looking for a job is a requirement of everyone who wants to receive EI regular benefits.

[26] Also, not applying because you want to qualify for a mortgage or because you aren’t familiar with the EI system are not exceptional circumstances. Ignorance of the law does not constitute good cause.^{Footnote 12}

[27] The Appellant’s medical evidence shows that he couldn’t sleep in December 2021. This isn’t an exceptional circumstance that explains why he applied for EI benefits in June 2022, rather than February 2022.

[28] I acknowledge the Appellant’s contributions to the EI system. I recognize that he’s gone through a lot in the past few years. But the Federal Court of Appeal says that the obligation and duty to file a claim promptly is very demanding and strict.^{Footnote 13} Considering all the Appellant’s circumstances, he hasn’t proven that he had good cause for the entire period of the delay.

[29] I don’t need to consider whether the Appellant qualified for benefits on the earlier day. Since the Appellant doesn’t have good cause, his application can’t be treated as though it was made earlier.

Conclusion

[30] The Appellant hasn’t proven that he had good cause for the delay in applying for benefits throughout the entire period of the delay.

[31] The appeal is dismissed.