Employment Insurance (EI)

Decision

[1] The appeal is dismissed. The Tribunal 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 April 22, 2024. She is now asking that the application be treated as though it was made earlier, on April 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 the Appellant didn’t have good cause because even though she had a car accident that she says affected her cognitive ability, she returned to work after the accident and took university level courses from June to August 2023. It says she didn’t act like a reasonable person in her situation would have to verify her rights and obligations under the law.

[6] The Appellant disagrees and says she was in a car accident and her recovery took several months and was made worse by an on-going situation at work. She says she supplied all the necessary information to get EI benefits.

Issue

[7] Can the Appellant’s application for benefits be treated as though it was made on April 30, 2023? This is called antedating (or, backdating) the application.

Analysis

[8] 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).

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

[10] 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.

[11] 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 April 30, 2023, to April 22, 2024.

[12] 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}

[13] 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.

[14] The Appellant says she had good cause for the delay. She says she gave the Commission all the necessary information to show that she had a car accident and medical issues, and that she had seen a doctor. She says the doctor told her that her recovery would take several months, especially due to the situation at work.

[15] The Commission says the Appellant hasn’t shown good cause for the delay because she didn’t do what a reasonable person in her situation would do to verify their rights and obligations under the law.

[16] I find that the Appellant hasn’t proven that she had good cause for the delay in applying for benefits because she didn’t act promptly and carefully to find out what she needed to do to get benefits.

[17] The Appellant had a car accident on March 13, 2023. She testified that she lost control of her car on the highway. She had a concussion and other injuries from the accident. Although the Appellant returned to work shortly after the accident, she left that job on April 28, 2023.

[18] The Appellant applied for EI regular benefits on April 22, 2024. But in her request to antedate her application, she said she wanted to receive sickness benefits.

[19] The Commission asked the Appellant why she delayed applying for benefits. Its notes say that the Appellant said she was hoping to get another job and didn’t know she could apply for benefits. I asked the Appellant about this. She said she didn’t say this. She reiterated that she delayed applying for benefits because she had a concussion and wasn’t sure if she would be able to return to work.

[20] The Appellant testified about the car accident. She said her ex-husband came to get her in Gatineau, Quebec, and took her to Ottawa, Ontario where he felt she would get better care and have her needs taken care of in English. The Appellant said the doctor told her she would need six months to recover from the accident. And she got a prescription for one year of physiotherapy for neck pain and a soft tissue injury.

[21] The Appellant said she didn’t have the physiotherapy that was prescribed. This is because she could not use the prescription in Quebec since it was issued in Ontario. And she testified that she could not continue with chiropractic treatment because of the cost. She sent the Tribunal a receipt confirming the chiropractic treatment she did have.

[22] I asked the Appellant when she recovered from her accident. She said she didn’t have the physiotherapy she should have had. She added that the ongoing mental stress from returning to work, with a two-hour commute each way, and dealing with the toxic work environment all delayed her recovery. The Appellant said that she has mostly recovered now.

[23] The Appellant told the Commission that she took some university courses from June to August 2023. She testified that these were entry-level courses that she needed to complete her degree. The Appellant said that her ex-husband supported her with the courses by sitting with her, listening to the lectures with her to make sure she was hearing them properly, and editing her work to make sure she was coherent.

[24] The Appellant explained that she only needed a few courses to satisfy her degree, and she could not delay taking them. She added that she didn’t do very well in any of her classes, but she did well enough to graduate from her program.

[25] I accept as fact that the Appellant had a car accident that took her several months to fully recover from. I also accept her testimony that returning to work after the accident to a work environment she says was toxic, having to do a long commute, and not completing physiotherapy and chiropractic treatment delayed her recovery.

[26] Despite the above, I don’t find that the Appellant acted promptly and carefully to verify what she needed to do to apply for EI benefits. And I don’t find that there are exceptional circumstances in her case, namely the effects of her car accident, that excuse her from not doing so.

[27] The Appellant referred to the impact of the accident on her cognitive ability. But she was able to complete university-level courses, albeit with help. She said she could not get an extension to complete the courses.

[28] I find that in the same way as the Appellant did for the university courses, she could have asked for help, if she needed it, to complete an application for benefits. She could have contacted Service Canada for this help or asked her ex-husband for help. I find that this is what a reasonable and prudent person in a similar situation would have done.

[29] I acknowledge that the Appellant said she only took entry-level courses. But I don’t find it likely that completing an application for benefits is more difficult than a university course that may involve listening to and absorbing course content, writing papers, and/or taking exams. But as noted above, the Appellant could have contacted Service Canada if there were any parts of the application for benefits that she found challenging in the circumstances.

[30] In addition, the Appellant sent the Tribunal an email exchange that she had with her insurance company and an auto glass company. The Appellant testified that she had to submit another claim because of a broken windshield on a rental vehicle. The email exchange is from just before the Appellant left her job, but after she had the car accident. But it doesn’t support the Appellant’s suggestion that her cognitive ability was so impaired that she could not complete an application for benefits.

[31] I asked the Appellant about the Commission’s submission that she didn’t contact Service Canada until her union representative told her she should apply for benefits in April 2024. The Appellant agreed that this was true. She added that she would not have been able to handle it mentally, emotionally or psychologically contacting anyone about her finances or her employment. She said she was experiencing mental distress.

[32] It is understandable for the Appellant to be upset by having to work in an environment that she says was toxic. But I’m not satisfied from her evidence that the effects from her work experience prevented her from applying for benefits for nearly 12 months. For example, the Appellant provided proof of the need for treatment due to the accident. But neither the prescription for physiotherapy nor the evidence of chiropractic services address problems the Appellant said resulted from her work environment.

[33] The Appellant testified that on her second visit to the hospital after the accident and after returning briefly to work, the doctor told her that her long commute and what she was experiencing at work would delay her recovery. But I’m not satisfied that this means the Appellant didn’t have the capacity to apply for benefits during the entire period of the delay.

[34] Based on the above, I don’t find that the Appellant has shown good cause for the entire period of the delay in applying for EI benefits.

[35] 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

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

[37] The appeal is dismissed.