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 05:48, 23 November 2019
, 05:48, 23 November 2019no edit summary
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
== B. Antedating == | == B. Antedating == | ||
If an application for EI benefits was not filed within the first four weeks after the week in which the claimant experienced their interruption of earnings inter, | If an application for EI benefits was not filed within the first four weeks after the week in which the claimant experienced their interruption of earnings inter, they can ask that the claim be antedated back to the first date when it could have been filed under s 10(4). The claimant must establish that good cause existed for the delay in filing. “Good cause” must be demonstrated for each day until the date of application was actually made. If the claim is filed within the first four weeks, it is automatically antedated to the first date of eligibility. | ||
:'''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. | ||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
Income regarded as earnings is “allocated” pursuant to s 36 of the EI Regulations. This is usually done at the claimant’s regular weekly rate of pay. Such allocation may delay the start of benefits by the number of weeks the earnings can be allocated to. For example, if a person normally earns $500 per week, and receives $1000 severance pay, their claim will be delayed for an additional 2 weeks after they stop work. This is because it will notionally take two weeks to “use up” the $1000, as the claimant usually makes this amount in two weeks. | Income regarded as earnings is “allocated” pursuant to s 36 of the EI Regulations. This is usually done at the claimant’s regular weekly rate of pay. Such allocation may delay the start of benefits by the number of weeks the earnings can be allocated to. For example, if a person normally earns $500 per week, and receives $1000 severance pay, their claim will be delayed for an additional 2 weeks after they stop work. This is because it will notionally take two weeks to “use up” the $1000, as the claimant usually makes this amount in two weeks. | ||
Though the claimant will need to wait until the money is used up before being eligible to receive benefits, | Though the claimant will need to wait until the money is used up before being eligible to receive benefits, they '''must still apply for EI immediately'''. The benefit period will be extended to make up for the weeks it takes to use up these earnings. | ||
== D. Income That Is Not Treated As Earnings == | == D. Income That Is Not Treated As Earnings == | ||
| Line 65: | Line 65: | ||
*b) receiving Workers’ Compensation payments for a total disability; or | *b) receiving Workers’ Compensation payments for a total disability; or | ||
*c) receiving payments under a provincial law on the basis of having ceased to work because continuing to work would have entailed danger to the claimant, the claimant’s unborn child, or a child the claimant is breast-feeding. | *c) receiving payments under a provincial law on the basis of having ceased to work because continuing to work would have entailed danger to the claimant, the claimant’s unborn child, or a child the claimant is breast-feeding. However, under BC law, BC residents are not entitled to these payments, and this does not apply to them. | ||
The benefit period can be further extended under s 10(11) where a claimant can prove that for any week during the extension period, he or she was not entitled to benefit, again for any reason stated in s 10(10). | The benefit period can be further extended under s 10(11) where a claimant can prove that for any week during the extension period, he or she was not entitled to benefit, again for any reason stated in s 10(10). | ||
| Line 101: | Line 101: | ||
{{REVIEWED LSLAP | date= July, 2019}} | |||
{{LSLAP Manual Navbox|type=chapters8-14}} | {{LSLAP Manual Navbox|type=chapters8-14}} | ||