5,109
edits
Difference between revisions of "Benefit Period of Employment Insurance (8:V)"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Benefit Period of Employment Insurance (8:V) (view source)
Revision as of 22:39, 7 August 2016
, 22:39, 7 August 2016→B. Antedating
Desy Wahyuni (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
'''What is “Good Cause”?''' Good cause has typically been interpreted narrowly. In one case, the applicant was in the hospital and the Commission denied his application for antedating on the grounds that his wife should have made the claim on his behalf. Simple ignorance of the requirements of the ''EI Act'' has not been considered good cause either, though reasonable reliance on bad advice from the employer, union, a legal advisor or the Commission itself usually meets the requirements. | '''What is “Good Cause”?''' Good cause has typically been interpreted narrowly. In one case, the applicant was in the hospital and the Commission denied his application for antedating on the grounds that his wife should have made the claim on his behalf. Simple ignorance of the requirements of the ''EI Act'' has not been considered good cause either, though reasonable reliance on bad advice from the employer, union, a legal advisor or the Commission itself usually meets the requirements. | ||
Recently some Boards of Referees have started to use a looser definition of good cause. In ''Attorney General v. Burke'', a man asked for his | Recently some Boards of Referees have started to use a looser definition of good cause. In ''Attorney General v. Burke'', 2012 FCA 139, a man asked for his application to be back dated because he had expected to be rehired and hence did not apply for EI until after the regular deadline.The Board of Referees decided that the standard for good cause was whether any reasonable person would have done the same, and found the man's case met this standard. This ruling survived appeals to both an umpire and the Federal Court of Appeal, as the umpire refused to interfere with the board’s decision on the basis that it was reasonable and the Federal Court of Appeal found the umpire’s refusal to interfere was itself reasonable. This case may open the door to similar rulings by other Boards. | ||
== C. Income That is Treated as Earnings == | == C. Income That is Treated as Earnings == | ||