Employment Insurance (EI)

Decision

[1] The appeal is dismissed.

[2] The Appellant hasn’t shown good cause for his delay in filing his weekly reports to claim employment insurance (EI) benefits. He hasn’t given an explanation the law accepts. This means his reports cannot be treated as though they were made earlier.

[3] It also means the disentitlement imposed on the Appellant’s claim for failing to file his reports on time must remain.

Overview

[4] In general, to receive EI benefits, you must make a claim for each week that you didn’t work and want to receive benefits^{Footnote 1}. The law requires you to prove you’re entitled to EI benefits for that week^{Footnote 2}.

[5] You make claims by submitting reports to the Respondent (Commission) every two weeks. Usually, you communicate the required information to the Commission by reporting online^{Footnote 3}. I will refer to this information you are required to submit on an on-going basis as Reports.

[6] There are deadlines for making claims^{Footnote 4}. The law says if you want to claim EI benefits for a particular week of unemployment, you need to submit your Report “within 3 weeks after the week for which the benefits are claimed”^{Footnote 5}

[7] The Appellant applied for EI benefits on February 11, 2023 and established a benefit period starting February 5, 2023^{Footnote 6}. But he didn’t submit any Reports.

[8] By the time he contacted the Commission on September 5, 2023, his Reports were considered late, and he was locked out of the online reporting system. He asked to have his Reports treated as though they were made earlier so he could be paid EI benefits from the start of his benefit period in February 2023. This process of backdating is called antedating.

[9] For his Reports to be antedated, the Appellant must prove he had good cause for his delay in filing them^{Footnote 7}.

[10] The Commission denied his antedate request. It decided he couldn’t be paid EI benefits from February 6, 2023 to September 1, 2023 because he didn’t file his Reports on time^{Footnote 8} and didn’t show good cause for his delay^{Footnote 9}.

[11] The Appellant appealed to the Social Security Tribunal (Tribunal).

Preliminary matters

The Appellant was outside of Canada during his benefit period.

[12] The Commission made 2 decisions on the Appellant’s claim. It said:

1. a) He is disentitled to EI benefits from February 6, 2023 to September 1, 2023 because he didn’t file his Reports within the allowed time and didn’t show good cause for being late; and
2. b) He is disentitled to EI benefits from May 2, 2023 to September 1, 2023 because he was outside of Canada.

[13] The Appellant doesn’t dispute the disentitlement imposed on his claim for being outside of Canada. He’s only asking to be paid EI benefits for the period before he left Canada, namely from February 6, 2023 to May 1, 2023.

[14] For this to happen, his request to antedate his Reports must be granted.

[15] This decision will address whether the Appellant’s Reports can be antedated and treated as though they were filed in time for him to receive the benefits he’s asking for.

[16] The disentitlement imposed for being outside of Canada remains in effect.

The Commission didn’t respond to my request for information.

[17] The Commission decided the Appellant didn’t prove good cause for his delay in filing his Reports. But it hasn’t identified the period of his delay anywhere in the reconsideration file (GD3) or its submissions in response to this appeal (GD4).

[18] This is problematic.

[19] The legal test for an antedate requires the Appellant to prove good cause throughout the entire period of his delay^{Footnote 10}. Yet there’s no indication of what period the Commission looked at when it decided the Appellant didn’t have good cause and denied his antedate request.

[20] The Appellant testified that his claim was under review from the moment he applied for EI benefits on February 11, 2023 because he’d quit his prior employment in November 2022^{Footnote 11}. He said the Commission was looking into why he quit and made an initial decision to deny his claim. He filed a request for reconsideration of that decision, and his claim was approved on April 28, 2023. He argued this is the earliest he could have been expected to file his Reports, and that he had good cause for his delay starting from April 28, 2023.

[21] The Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure allow me to ask the Commission for information^{Footnote 12}.

[22] In light of the Appellant’s testimony and submissions, and the Commission’s failure to identify the period of the delay, I sent a notice to the Commission asking it provide information and documents related to the administration of the Appellant’s claim prior to September 5, 2023, when he asked to antedate his late Reports^{Footnote 13}.

[23] And I specifically asked the Commission to confirm the date the Appellant’s claim was approved^{Footnote 14}.

[24] The notice was sent to the Commission on March 26, 2024 and it had until April 9, 2024 to provide the requested information. When there was no response from the Commission by April 16, 2024, I extended the deadline to April 30, 2024^{Footnote 15}.

[25] The Commission did not respond by the extended deadline, so I proceeded to make my decision.

[26] I accept the Appellant’s testimony and make the following findings of fact:

• After the Appellant applied for EI benefits the Commission investigated the reason for the Appellant’s separation from employment and decided he couldn’t be paid EI benefits because he quit his job. This meant his claim was denied.
• He asked the Commission to reconsider that decision.
• His claim was under review during the reconsideration process.
• Upon reconsideration, the Commission changed its initial decision that he couldn’t be paid EI benefits. This meant his claim was approved.
• The decision to approve his claim was made on April 28, 2023^{Footnote 16}.

[27] In support of these findings, I note the Appellant made an affirmation to tell the truth in his testimony and that he answered my questions sincerely and in a way that was spontaneous and forthright. I also note that his testimony was consistent with what he told the Commission when he was first interviewed about his request to antedate his Reports: he said his claim wasn’t approved until late April, after an initial denial and subsequent reconsideration^{Footnote 17}.

Issue

[28] Did the Appellant have good cause for his delay in filing his Reports to claim EI benefits?

Analysis

[29] For his Reports to be antedated (or backdated), the Appellant must prove he had good cause for his delay in filing the Reports throughout the entire period of the delay^{Footnote 18}.

[30] To show good cause, the Appellant must prove he acted as a reasonable and prudent person would have acted in similar circumstances^{Footnote 19}. In other words, he has to show he acted reasonably and carefully just as anyone else would have if they were in a similar situation.

[31] The Appellant must also demonstrate he took reasonably prompt steps to understand his entitlement to benefits and obligations under the law^{Footnote 20}. This means he has to show he tried to learn about his rights and responsibilities as soon as possible and as best he could. And if he didn’t take these steps, then he must prove there were exceptional circumstances that explain why he didn’t do so^{Footnote 21}.

[32] The Appellant must show he acted this way for the entire period of the delay^{Footnote 22}.

What is the period of the Appellant’s delay?

[33] The law says the period of delay begins on “the earlier day” requested and ends on the day the claim was actually made^{Footnote 23}.

[34] The Appellant asked to have his Reports antedated to February 12, 2023^{Footnote 24} and to be paid benefits from the start of his claim on February 5, 2023.

[35] But his first Report (to be paid benefits for the week of February 5 – 11, 2023) wouldn’t have been accepted on February 12, 2023 because his application for EI benefits was only filed on February 11, 2023 and his claim was under review. It was under review because he’d quit his job, then there was a negative decision on his claim (the initial denial), and then his claim was under review again when he asked for reconsideration.

[36] In these circumstances, the Appellant’s Reports wouldn’t have been accepted until his claim for EI benefits was approved^{Footnote 25}, and that didn’t happen until April 28, 2023.

[37] So I won’t consider February 12, 2023 as “the earlier day” for his antedate.

[38] The law says you have up to 3 weeks to make a claim to be paid for a week of unemployment^{Footnote 26}.

[39] In the Appellant’s case, those 3 weeks can only run from April 28, 2023 because that is the earliest possible date he could have submitted a Report to claim benefits for the week of February 5 - 11, 2023 on his initial claim.

[40] This means the Appellant’s first Report was due by not later than May 19, 2023, because that date is 3 weeks after his claim was approved on April 28, 2023. After May 19, 2023, the Appellant’s Reports are considered late.

[41] The Appellant tried to submit his Reports on September 5, 2023. His account was blocked, so he made his antedate request. But he didn’t file his Reports until October 20, 2023^{Footnote 27}.

[42] The Commission doesn’t identify the period of the Appellant’s delay anywhere in the reconsideration file or its submissions in response to the appeal^{Footnote 28}.

[43] But the law says the delay runs from the earlier date requested until the date the claim was made, and a claim can only be made with the filing of a Report.

[44] I therefore find that May 19, 2023 is the “earlier day” for purposes of determining the period of the Appellant’s delay. This was the reporting deadline (the last possible date) for submitting the claim report for the first pay period on his initial claim. Said differently, the Appellant only needed to ask for his Reports to be antedated to May 19, 2023 for them to be considered on time.

[45] This means the Appellant’s delay runs from May 19, 2023 (the earlier day) until October 20, 2023 (the day he filed his Reports). This is a delay of 22 weeks.

How does the Appellant explain his delay?

[46] When he made his antedate request, the Appellant explained his delay in filing his Reports as follows^{Footnote 29}:

• He wasn’t aware he had to make Reports.
• His claim was initially denied, and he had to ask for a reconsideration. He had many conversations with multiple Service Canada representations. No one told him that he needed to complete his Reports.
• His claim wasn’t approved until late April 2023.
• He left Canada on May 1, 2023 and returned September 1, 2023.
• His phone was on airplane mode while he was outside of Canada, so he never received any messages because his Canadian phone number was inactive.
• He was unable to log into his My Service Canada account (MSCA) because of the text message code security system. To log in to his account, a code would have to be sent to his cellphone’s Canadian number, but he couldn’t access that because he was using a local (European) SIM card.
• When he returned to Canada, he logged into his account and saw his claim was approved.

[47] After his antedate request was denied, the Appellant told the Commission that^{Footnote 30}:

• He didn’t submit his Reports because he was unsure his claim would be approved.
• He had multiple conversations with Service Canada representatives while he was waiting for his claim to be approved, and no one told him he needed to complete his Reports while waiting for his claim to be approved.
• He received the letter with his access code but didn’t see the instructions in the letter reminding him to submit his Reports.
• He didn’t log in to his MSCA account, check the Service Canada website, or go to his local Service Canada office to inquire.
• Prior to leaving Canada, he’d been calling Service Canada to check the status of his claim and didn’t know he needed to complete his Reports while waiting for his claim to be approved. The Service Canada representatives he spoke with should have reminded him to complete his Reports.
• He assumed he couldn’t submit his Reports until a decision was made on his claim and he was approved for benefits.
• His claim was approved on April 28, 2023, but he left Canada without knowing this. Then he couldn’t access his MSCA account because his phone was inactive until he returned.

[48] In his Notice of Appeal, the Appellant said^{Footnote 31}:

• He got a letter at the beginning of his claim with an access code. He put the access code in but didn’t realize he was supposed to start doing his Reports from that day forward.
• He had more than 5 phone calls with Service Canada trying to get his claim for EI benefits approved.
• Not once did a Service Canada representative say he had to be doing his Reports even though his claim wasn’t approved yet. He repeatedly asked if there was anything he needed to do while he waited for his claim to be approved and was advised, “No”.
• This is his first time applying for EI benefits^{Footnote 32}. He didn’t notice the requirement on the application form that he was expected to file Reports^{Footnote 33}.

[49] At the hearing, the Appellant testified that:

• When he quit his job in November 2022, he had another job lined up to start 2 weeks later. But that job fell through, so he was unemployed and looking for work.
• He applied for EI benefits in February 2023, after his mother told him to apply.
• He asked to have his initial application antedated to coincide with his last day of work in November 2022. This antedate request was denied, and his claim was started as of February 2022.
• The Commission immediately started looking into why he quit and decided to deny his claim because of the quit. He asked for a reconsideration and then there was more investigation into the quit.
• He was sorting out all of these issues on his claim: his request to antedate his initial application for benefits and proving he was entitled to EI even though he’d quit his job.
• He was “going back and forth” with the Commission by phone every week because his claim was under review and he was fighting the denial.
• He wasn’t checking his MSCA account because he was “doing everything with the Commission by phone”.
• The Commission posted a message in his MSCA account on April 28, 2023 saying his claim was approved. But he didn’t see this message because he wasn’t checking his MSCA account.  He was expecting to get a phone call from the Commission saying they’d made a decision on his reconsideration and his claim was approved.
• While he was waiting for his claim to be approved, he was running out of money.
• He was renting a basement apartment from his cousin, and realized he wouldn’t be able to pay the rent for May. He believed his cousin would have told him to leave if he couldn’t pay his rent.
• About 2 weeks before the May rent was due, his uncle in Croatia offered him a place to stay and chance to earn some money by working on his farm.
• He decided to go to Croatia to stay with his uncle because he didn’t want to be “homeless”. He purchased a plane ticket and had less than $400 to his name when he left Canada for Croatia on May 1, 2023.
• As far as he knew, there was still no decision on his request for reconsideration. He’d called Service Canada a couple of days before leaving Canada and was told there was still no decision.
• This made him think his claim for EI benefits wasn’t going to be approved.
• He didn’t find out his claim had been approved until after he returned to Toronto on September 1, 2023 and logged in to his MSCA account to see what was going on with his claim. That’s when he saw it had been approved on April 28, 2023.
• He called Service Canada and was told he’d have to do his Reports to be paid, and that he’d have to make another antedate request because they were late.
• He made the antedate request, but it “took another month or so” to work out access for him to submit his Reports. He eventually submitted them by phone.

[50] I asked the Appellant why he didn’t start filing his Reports when he received the letter with his access code? He answered:

• He didn’t read the whole letter.
• When he got the letter, he tried to log in with the code to make sure it worked.
• After that, he phoned Service Canada and asked what the next step was.
• That call led to a lot more phone calls with Service Canada about backdating his initial application and why he quit his job back in November 2022.
• These calls led to more calls when he asked for reconsideration of the Commission’s decision to deny his claim.
• The phone calls with Service Canada continued right up until a couple of days before he left for Croatia.
• Not once was he told he should be filing his Reports while he waited for his claim to be approved.

[51] I also asked the Appellant why he didn’t check his MSCA account while he was in Croatia? He answered:

• His Canadian phone number was “down”, and he couldn’t receive texts.
• This meant he couldn’t get the security code to log into his MSCA account because that code would be sent by text to his Canadian phone number.
• He was using a European SIM card for local cellphone and internet service.
• He couldn’t phone Service Canada from Europe because a long-distance call like that would have been expensive.
• He lived with his uncle, who gave him room and board. He made some money by working on his uncle’s farm. When he’d saved up enough money to get on his feet again, he went back to Canada.
• He logged in to his MSCA account shortly after he returned.

Issue 1: Did the Appellant do what a reasonable and prudent person would have done in similar circumstances?

Short answer

[52] No, he did not. The Appellant didn’t act reasonably and carefully just as anyone else would have if they were in a similar situation.

My findings

[53] To prove good cause for his delay throughout the 22 weeks between May 19, 2023 and October 20, 2023, the Appellant must show he acted as a reasonable and prudent person in his circumstances would have throughout that period.

[54] The Appellant’s circumstances during the delay were:

• He was a first-time claimant when he applied for EI benefits on February 11, 2023. He’d received an initial letter from the Commission with his access code and successfully used this code to log in to his MSCA account.
• He didn’t log in to his MSCA account again until September 5, 2023.
• He’d been unemployed since quitting his job in November 2022.
• He’d had multiple phone calls with Service Canada representatives about whether his claim would be approved given that he’d quit his job and still didn’t know the answer.
• He was aware the Commission had investigated why he quit^{Footnote 34}, knew his claim had been denied because of the quit, and was still waiting for a decision on his reconsideration request to see if he could receive EI benefits.
• His financial circumstances had deteriorated to the point where he’d run out of money, was unable to pay his next month’s rent, and had decided to leave Canada to live with his uncle in Croatia and earn some money working on his uncle’s farm.
• He left Canada on May 1, 2023 and returned on September 1, 2023.
• He didn’t phone Service Canada or log in to his MSCA account while he was in Croatia. Nor did he do research online or try to contact the Commission by E-mail.
• He didn’t find out his claim was approved on April 28, 2023 until he logged in to his MSCA account again on September 5, 2023.
• He filed his Reports by telephone on October 20, 2023.

[55] To summarize, from May 19, 2023 to September 4, 2023 (which is the majority of the Appellant’s delay), he had no idea what the outcome of his request for reconsideration was and was waiting to find out whether his claim would be approved or whether he was still disqualified for voluntarily leaving his job without just cause. His financial circumstances were so difficult that he decided to leave Canada and was relying on his uncle in Croatia for room and board and to earn money by working on his farm.

[56] I find that a reasonable and prudent person in the Appellant’s circumstances would have been checking their MSCA account regularly if they were still waiting for a decision on their reconsideration request and to find out whether their claim was approved or not.

[57] Yet the Appellant didn’t check his MSCA account once and made no effort to contact Service Canada for updates or to make enquiries between May 19, 2023 and September 4, 2023.

[58] An MSCA account is the primary way the Commission communicates with claimants. Logging in to an MSCA account is also, generally, faster and more efficient than phoning Service Canada and speaking with a representative.

[59] By May 19, 2023 (the start of the Appellant’s period of delay), I find that a reasonable and prudent person in the Appellant’s circumstances would have been checking their MSCA account every single day for updates on the status of their reconsideration request and their claim.

[60] And if they were outside of Canada, I find that a reasonable and prudent person in the Appellant’s circumstances would have maintained their Canadian cellphone service (so they would be able to receive the security code required to log in to their MSCA account) – at least until they saw there was a decision on whether their claim was approved or not^{Footnote 35}. This is especially true if, as the Appellant testified, they were awaiting a phone call from Service Canada about the outcome of their reconsideration request and whether their claim was approved.

[61] If the Appellant had checked his MSCA account on May 19, 2023, he would have seen the notification the Commission posted in his account on April 28th that his claim was approved. He also would have seen a message to start filing his Reports. And he could have filed his Reports online that same day and they would not have been considered late. This would have allowed him to be paid EI benefits for the period before he left Canada^{Footnote 36}.

[62] If the Appellant had checked his MSCA account on any day during the 2 weeks after May 19, 2023, he would have seen that his claim had been approved. He couldn’t have filed his Reports, but he could have contacted the Commission by E-mail or phone call to enquire about what to do next^{Footnote 37}. I understand that phoning from Croatia might have been expensive, but the Appellant would only have needed to speak with a Service Canada representative once after May 19, 2023 to make enquires about what steps he needed to take to be paid EI benefits now that his claim was approved^{Footnote 38}.

[63] Instead, the Appellant waited until September 5, 2023 to log in to his MSCA account and contact Service Canada about what to do next. This phone call led him to make this antedate request and, eventually, file his Reports on October 20, 2023.

[64] I find that if the Appellant were acting reasonably and carefully as anyone else in similar circumstances would have, he wouldn’t have waited so long to do these things. He would have accessed his MSCA account and/or contacted Service Canada by phone or E-mail at least once in the first 2 weeks of his delay (namely, between May 19, 2023 and June 2, 2023); and, having discovered that his claim was approved, would have filed his Reports to claim benefits going back to February 6, 2023 the same day – either online or via the telephone reporting system.

[65] For all of these reasons, I find the Appellant did not act as a reasonable and prudent person would have in similar circumstances throughout the period of his delay (May 19, 2023 to October 20, 2023).

[66] This means he hasn’t shown good cause for his delay.

Issue 2: Did the Appellant take reasonably prompt steps to find out about his rights and obligations?

Short answer

[67] No, he didn’t. The Appellant didn’t try to learn about his rights and responsibilities as soon as possible and as best he could.

My findings

[68] I accept that, as a first-time claimant, the Appellant was unfamiliar with the EI program. But it’s well established that ignorance of the process, even coupled with good faith, does not constitute good cause under the law^{Footnote 39}.

[69] I also accept that the Appellant had made a personal decision to leave Canada on May 1, 2023 because he was still unemployed, couldn’t pay his rent for that month, and had an offer from his uncle in Croatia for room and board and farming work that would allow him to save some money and get on his feet again.

[70] But it wasn’t reasonable for the Appellant to delay from May 19, 2023 to September 5, 2023 to take any steps to check on what happened with his reconsideration request and, most importantly, find out whether his claim had been approved and if he could receive EI benefits. Especially when he had an access code and knew how to log in to his MSCA account; and he’d been unemployed since quitting his job in November 2022, had depleted his savings, and had no other sources of income until he arrived in Croatia on May 1, 2023 to work on his uncle’s farm.

[71] I find that if the Appellant was trying to learn about his rights and responsibilities as soon as possible and as best he could, he would have logged in to his MSCA account or phoned Service Canada within the first 2 weeks of his delay (namely, between May 19, 2023 and June 2, 2023) to check for an update and (upon being advised his claim had been approved on April 28, 2023) find out what he had to do to get paid on that claim^{Footnote 40}. Especially since he’d been in regular contact with Service Canada for 3 months prior to leaving Canada, following up on his reconsideration request and enquiring about the status of his claim.

[72] But he failed to take any steps to verify his entitlement and his obligation to file his Reports until September 5, 2023.

[73] This shows he did not try to learn about his rights and responsibilities as soon as possible and as best she could throughout the period of his delay (May 19, 2023 to October 20, 2023).

[74] And it means he hasn’t shown good cause for his delay.

Issue 3: Were there exceptional circumstances that excuse the Appellant from taking reasonably prompt steps?

[75] No, there were not.

[76] The EI program expects claimants who wish to receive regular EI benefits to balance their personal responsibilities with actively searching for work and submitting their Reports on time. These things are not considered exceptional circumstances.

[77] The Appellant had been unemployed and searching for work since November 2022. By April 2023, he was running out of money and unable to pay his next month’s rent. He decided to leave Canada and live with his uncle in Croatia to save on living expenses and earn some money working on his uncle’s farm. His choice to do so is considered managing his personal responsibilities and not an exceptional circumstance.

[78] I see no evidence of anything extraordinary during the period of his delay (May 19, 2023 to October 20, 2023) that prevented him from logging in to his MSCA account or phoning Service Canada to check on whether his claim was approved or completing his Reports.

[79] Being outside of Canada did not prevent him from logging in to his MSCA account or contacting Service Canada by phone or E-mail to understand his rights and obligations.

[80] Nor did his decision to place his cellphone on airplane mode and/or de-activate his Canadian cellphone number and use a European SIM card (thereby restricting himself from receiving texts with the security code necessary to log in to his MSCA account).

[81] The Appellant had phone and internet access while he was in Croatia and failed to utilize either to check on the outcome of his reconsideration request and, most importantly, find out whether his claim had been approved and if he could receive EI benefits – and how to do so. His choice to adjust his cellphone set up to save money is considered managing his personal responsibilities and not an extraordinary factor that prevented him from logging in to his MSCA account or contacting Service Canada by phone or E-mail during his delay.

[82] I therefore find there were no exceptional circumstances that excused the Appellant from taking reasonably prompt steps to understand his rights and obligations under the EI Act.

Issue 4: What if the outcome of this appeal seems unfair?

[83] The Appellant’s claim was initially denied. He asked the Commission to reconsider its decision not to pay him EI benefits and was successful in getting that decision overturned when his claim was approved on April 28, 2023. But he didn’t find this out until September 5, 2023. He asked me to consider that he’s only asking for EI benefits for the time before he left Canada, which is the time it took to get his claim approved.

[84] I acknowledge the Appellant’s disappointment at not receiving EI benefits after being successful on his reconsideration request. And I understand he’s only asking to be paid EI benefits for part of the disentitlement period^{Footnote 41}.

[85] But the Supreme Court of Canada has said I must follow the law, even if the outcome seems unfair^{Footnote 42}.

[86] The Federal Court of Appeal has said the antedate provisions in the EI Act are not the product of legislative whim but contain a policy that is vital to the efficient administration of the EI program^{Footnote 43}. The court has also said that antedate is not a right of every claimant, but an advantage for which they must qualify; and it is an advantage that should be applied exceptionally^{Footnote 44}. The obligation to promptly apply for EI benefits and submit Reports to claim EI benefits is seen as very demanding and strict, and this is why the “good cause for delay” test for the exception is in place.

[87] This means the Appellant must satisfy the legal test for his antedate request to be granted. Only then will the Commission be required to accept his Reports as if they had been filed on time and process them for payment.

[88] So, the Appellant must prove he had good cause throughout the entire period of the delay in filing his Reports. He must also show he took reasonably prompt steps to understand his rights and obligations during the period of the delay, or that there were exceptional circumstances that prevented him from doing so.

[89] For the reasons set out under Issues 1, 2 and 3 above, I find the Appellant has not satisfied any part of this test for period of his delay.

[90] This means his Reports cannot be antedated. It also means he’s not entitled to receive the EI benefits he’s asking for (namely, from February 6, 2023 to May 1, 2023).   

[91] Finally, I acknowledge the financial difficulties the Appellant has experienced and the stress that led him to briefly relocate to Croatia. I understand his frustration at not being able to receive EI benefits on this claim.

[92] But I can’t make an exception for the Appellant, no matter how compelling his circumstances or arguments may be. I have found the Appellant hasn’t satisfied the legal test for his Reports to be antedated. And I don’t have jurisdiction or discretion to direct the Commission to pay him EI benefits he’s not entitled to. So, the disentitlement on his claim from February 6, 2023 to September 1, 2023 must remain.

Conclusion

[93] The Appellant hasn’t proven he had good cause for his delay in filing his Reports to claim EI benefits for the period February 6, 2023 to September 1, 2023.

[94] This means his Reports cannot be treated as though they were made in time for him to be paid the EI benefits he’s asking for^{Footnote 45}.

[95] It also means the disentitlement imposed on his claim from February 6, 2023 to September 1, 2023 must remain.

[96] The appeal is dismissed.