Employment Insurance (EI)

Decision

[1] Leave (permission) to appeal is refused. The appeal will not proceed.

Overview

[2] E. M. is the Applicant. She applied for Employment Insurance (EI) benefits on November 22, 2022. She asked to have her application antedated (backdated) to October 17, 2021.

[3] The Canada Employment Insurance Commission (Commission) denied the Applicant’s request. The Social Security Tribunal (Tribunal) General Division agreed with the Commission.^{Footnote 1} The Applicant has asked for permission to appeal the General Division’s decision.

[4] The Applicant says the General Division made an error of law. She says the General Division didn’t properly apply the legal test for antedate.

[5] I am denying the Applicant’s request for permission to appeal because there is no reasonable chance of success.

Preliminary matters

The Applicant didn’t specify an error the General Division made

[6] On September 23, 2024, I wrote the Applicant and explained, “leave to appeal can only be granted if you raise an arguable case about how the General Division made an error (mistake). This means that you need to explain HOW the General Division made an error.”^{Footnote 2}

[7] The Applicant sent three submissions. All of the submissions have been considered.^{Footnote 3}

New evidence won’t be considered

[1] The Applicant says she had a medical issue during the time she delayed applying for EI benefits.^{Footnote 4} The Appeal Division can’t consider new evidence unless it falls under an exception.^{Footnote 5} In this case, the Applicant is not giving general background information. She is also not providing the information to show the General Division made an error. She is giving information to help explain why she delayed in filing a claim for EI benefits.

[8] An appeal, at this level, is not a new hearing based on new evidence. It is a review of the General Division’s decision based only on the evidence it had.^{Footnote 6} This means I am only considering the evidence that was before the General Division.

Issue

[9] Is there an arguable case that the General Division made an error of law when it applied the legal test of good cause and noted the Applicant had to act as a reasonable and prudent person would have in similar circumstances?

I am not giving the Applicant permission to appeal

[10] An appeal can only go ahead if the Appeal Division gives an applicant permission to appeal.^{Footnote 7} I have to be satisfied the appeal has a reasonable chance of success.^{Footnote 8} That means, there has to be an arguable ground upon which the appeal might succeed.^{Footnote 9}

[11] There are only certain grounds of appeal that the Appeal Division can consider.^{Footnote 10} Briefly, the Applicant has to show that the General Division did one of the following:

• It acted unfairly in some way.
• It decided an issue it shouldn’t have, or didn’t decide an issue it should have.
• It made an error of law.
• It based its decision on an important error of fact.

[12] So, for the Applicant’s appeal to go ahead, I have to find there is a reasonable chance of success on any one of those grounds. The Applicant says she thinks the General Division made a mistake in law.^{Footnote 11} She says the reasonable and prudent person test isn’t right.

There is no arguable case the General Division made an error of law when it applied the legal test of good cause which includes a reasonable person standard

[13] The Applicant agrees she applied for EI benefits late.^{Footnote 12} The General Division correctly stated what the legal test is to have a claim antedated.^{Footnote 13} It had to consider whether the Applicant had “good cause” for the period of the delay. It is settled law that good cause is shown by acting as a reasonable and prudent person would have in similar circumstances.^{Footnote 14}

[14] The General Division explained very specifically the test it had to apply.^{Footnote 15} This included that the Applicant had to show she acted as a reasonable person in her circumstances would have.

[15] The Applicant said she was suspended from her work because she wasn’t vaccinated.^{Footnote 16} She said she had trauma at the time and the trauma was extreme.^{Footnote 17}

[16] The Applicant said based on what she read on the EI website, and what she heard on the news, she didn’t think she would be entitled to EI benefits.^{Footnote 18} The Applicant said what her financial stress was like at the time.^{Footnote 19} She said that she had to move, ran through her savings, and told the General Division her different sources of income.

[17] The General Division summarized what it heard and the Applicant confirmed it was accurate.^{Footnote 20} Ultimately, the Applicant said that because of what she read on the EI website and what she heard through word of mouth, she thought there was no point in applying. The Applicant admitted that she never contacted anyone from Service Canada because she was angry at the time.^{Footnote 21}

[18] The Applicant now says that this was acting as a reasonable person would have acted.^{Footnote 22} She says it was reasonable not to apply. She says people don’t apply for programs they believe they are ineligible for. The Applicant had noted all of these things to the General Division. It considered her arguments.^{Footnote 23}

[19] The General Division found the Applicant took over 13 months to take any action.^{Footnote 24} It said the Applicant could have contacted Service Canada to ask questions. Or, she could have just applied for EI benefits to find out if she were successful.^{Footnote 25}

[20] As the General Division notes, good faith and ignorance of the law don’t give one good cause.^{Footnote 26} The law expects people to take steps to find out their rights, and obligations, under the law.^{Footnote 27} The General Division says a reasonable person wouldn’t have relied on information from acquaintances or unverified assumptions.^{Footnote 28}

[21] The General Division found there were no exceptional circumstances that applied in the Applicant’s case.^{Footnote 29}

[22] All of this means the General Division stated and applied the correct legal test.^{Footnote 30} It listened to what the Applicant said. It then applied the law to the facts of the case. The Appeal Division isn’t a redo of what happened at the General Division. Unless there is an error, I can’t intervene (step in).^{Footnote 31} There is no arguable case that the General Division made an error of law.

There are no additional errors in the General Division decision

[23] Because the Applicant is self-represented, I took my own look at the appeal. I have reviewed the file, listened to the hearing recording, and looked at the decision the Applicant is appealing. I haven’t found any reviewable error that the General Division may have made.^{Footnote 32}

Conclusion

[24] Permission to appeal is refused. This means that the appeal will not proceed.