Employment Insurance (EI)

Decision

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

[2] The Appellant hasn’t shown that she 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 16, 2024. She is now asking that the application be treated as though it was made earlier, on June 30, 2023. The Canada Employment Insurance Commission (Commission) has already refused this request.

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

[5] The Commission says that the Appellant didn’t have good cause because she did not act reasonably in waiting close to a year to apply for EI benefits. It says that although the Appellant was under the impression that she had to be fired in order to be eligible to apply for benefits, this was incorrect and not a reasonable presumption for the Appellant to have.

[6] The Appellant disagrees and says the following:

• She was never directed by her employer to apply for employment insurance benefits during the summer;
• She assumed that as she had not been terminated she could not qualify for benefits; and
• She only became aware of her right to apply for benefits when told she could do so by another supply secretary within the school district.

[7] The Appellant says that as soon as she became aware of her right to apply for benefits, she did so. She told me that she didn’t believe it was right for her to be punished because she did not know she could apply for benefits. Moreover, the Appellant’s employer, since hiring her, has started to direct new hires to EI benefit applications for the summer months. Had she a similar orientation, she would have known her right to apply for benefits.

Issue

[8] Can the Appellant’s application for benefits be treated as though it was made on June 30, 2023? 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 2}

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 she acted as a reasonable and prudent person would have acted in similar circumstances.^{Footnote 3} In other words, she has to show that she acted reasonably and carefully just as anyone else would have if they were in a similar situation.

[12] The Appellant has to show that she acted this way for the entire period of the delay.^{Footnote 4} That period is from the day she wants her application antedated to until the day she actually applied. So, for the Appellant, the period of the delay is from June 30, 2023, to June 16, 2024.

[13] The Appellant also has to show that she took reasonably prompt steps to understand her entitlement to benefits and obligations under the law.^{Footnote 5} This means that the Appellant has to show that she tried to learn about her rights and responsibilities as soon as possible and as best she could. If the Appellant didn’t take these steps, then she must show that there were exceptional circumstances that explain why she didn’t do so.^{Footnote 6}

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

[15] The Appellant says that she had good cause for the delay because she was never advised by her employer to understand her rights to obtain employment insurance benefits and because she assumed that you had to be terminated in order to apply for benefits. 

[16] The Commission says that the Appellant hasn’t shown good cause for the delay because ignorance of the law even if coupled with good faith, is not sufficient to establish good cause.^{Footnote 7} Instead, the correct legal test for good cause is whether the Appellant acted as a reasonable person in her situation would have done.

[17] I find that the Appellant hasn’t proven that she had good cause for the delay in applying for benefits because she did not take any steps to inform herself of her rights to obtain EI and there are no exceptional circumstances that would excuse her from doing so.

[18] I accept that the Appellant thought that one can only obtain EI benefits when they are terminated from their employment, but this is incorrect. EI benefits are generally not available to a person when they have been terminated. Being terminated is generally associated with misconduct. When an employee is fired for engaging in misconduct, benefits are generally not available to them. However, even if the Appellant was confused about when benefits are available, it would be incumbent on her to learn when entitlement may be present.

[19] Her employer did her a disservice in not providing orientation to new staff when she was hired. However, the law expects that applicants, will search out for information and inform themselves of their rights under the EI Act. The Appellant was clear during the hearing and from the file materials that she did not take any such action. I understand why. She is a new employee and presumed that she was not entitled to these benefits. However, just because I understand this does not make it reasonable. The law expects all applicants, regardless of them being new workers or not being oriented by their employers, to seek out the information required to make informed decisions. That the Appellant did not do so shows that she did not act like a reasonable or prudent person in these circumstances. 

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

Conclusion

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

[22] The appeal is dismissed.