A. C. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission

A. C. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission

The appellant failed to demonstrate good cause throughout the period of delay because she was aware the ROE was missing by mid‑2015 yet did not take reasonably prompt steps to obtain the ROE or seek Commission assistance thereafter; therefore the initial claim cannot be antedated under s.10(4) and the appeal is...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2017 SSTGDEI 43
Parties
Appellant: A. C.; Respondent: Canada Employment Insurance Commission
Court
Social Security Tribunal of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 April 2017
Procedural Posture
Employment Insurance (ei) Appeal to Social Security Tribunal General Division / Decision at General Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Antedating Initial Claim Under S.10(4), Good Cause for Delay, Record of Employment (roe), Failure to Perfect Initial Claim, Claimant's Duty to Take Reasonably Prompt Steps
Source Language
english
Employment Insurance Administrative Law Social Security Antedating Initial Claim Under S.10(4) Good Cause for Delay Record of Employment (roe) Failure to Perfect Initial Claim Claimant's Duty to Take Reasonably Prompt Steps

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A. C.

Appellant

Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Insurance (ei) Appeal to Social Security Tribunal General Division / Decision at General Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's initial claim can be antedated under s.10(4) of the Employment Insurance Act
  2. 2 Whether the appellant had good cause for the delay in perfecting her initial claim by providing the ROE
  3. 3 Whether the employer's payroll error excuses the claimant from the duty to take prompt steps to secure an ROE or seek Commission assistance

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant failed to demonstrate good cause throughout the period of delay because she was aware the ROE was missing by mid‑2015 yet did not take reasonably prompt steps to obtain the ROE or seek Commission assistance thereafter; therefore the initial claim cannot be antedated under s.10(4) and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Commission's decision denying entitlement to benefits from June 28, 2015 to June 3, 2016 is maintained; no benefit period is antedated prior to June 30, 2016.