Aujlay v. Canada (Attorney General)

Aujlay v. Canada (Attorney General)

The Appeal Division reasonably concluded that the applicant did not establish good cause for the full period of delay (December 2014 to January 2016); despite contradictory evidence about a Service Canada phone call, the record established that the applicant should have promptly followed up when the expected...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2021 FCA 53
Parties
Applicant: Kishan P.S. Aujlay; Respondent: Attorney General of Canada
Court
Federal Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review of Social Security Tribunal (appeal Division) Decision Regarding Employment Insurance Antedating Request / Decision on Application for Judicial Review (dismissed)
Outcome
Application for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Employment Insurance, Antedating of Claim, Delay and Good Cause, Judicial Review, Standard of Review — Reasonableness, Natural Justice
Source Language
en
Employment Law Administrative Law Social Security/benefits Law Tribunal Procedure Employment Insurance Antedating of Claim Delay and Good Cause Judicial Review +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kishan P.S. Aujlay

Applicant

Attorney General of Canada

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review of Social Security Tribunal (appeal Division) Decision Regarding Employment Insurance Antedating Request / Decision on Application for Judicial Review (dismissed)

  1. 1 Whether the applicant established good cause for the delay in filing EI claims reports for the entire period between December 2014 and January 2016
  2. 2 Whether the General Division erred by failing to address contradictory evidence about a Service Canada telephone call
  3. 3 Whether the Appeal Division properly exercised its statutory power under s.59 of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act

Ratio Decidendi

The Appeal Division reasonably concluded that the applicant did not establish good cause for the full period of delay (December 2014 to January 2016); despite contradictory evidence about a Service Canada phone call, the record established that the applicant should have promptly followed up when the expected settlement did not occur, and the delay of approximately one year was inexcusable, so the antedating request was properly denied and there was no breach of natural justice.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review dismissed

Orders

  • Application for judicial review dismissed
  • No costs awarded