Federal Court of Appeal Decisions

Date: 20051103

Docket: A-242-05

Citation: 2005 FCA 367

CORAM:        LINDEN J.A.

ROTHSTEIN J.A.

PELLETIER J.A.

BETWEEN:

                                                           

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

Applicant

and

EMILY CARRY

Respondent

Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on November 3, 2005.

Judgment delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on November 3, 2005.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY:                                                      LINDEN J.

Date: 20051103

Docket: A-242-05

Citation: 2005 FCA 367

CORAM:        LINDEN J.A.

ROTHSTEIN J.A.

PELLETIER J.A.

BETWEEN:

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

Applicant

and

EMILY CARRY

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, on November 3, 2005)

LINDEN J.A.

[1]                This application challenges the decision of an Umpire under the Employment Insurance Act for deciding that the Respondent had good cause for delaying the application for benefits.

[2]                The employment of the Respondent teacher ended by mandatory retirement on June 27, 2003. She applied for benefits on March 22, 2004 requesting that her application be antedated for September 1, 2003, on the bases that she was unaware of her eligibility to apply prior to March 22, 2004. The application to antedate the application was denied by the commission for lack of good cause and hence she was informed that she had insufficient hours to qualify. She appealed.

[3]                The Board of Referees allowed the appeal of the Respondent on the antedate issue. The commission then appealed.

[4]                The Umpire affirmed the decision of the Board on the basis that it was not unreasonable to hold that there was good cause in this case.

[5]                The jurisprudence of this Court, however, clearly does not permit such a conclusion in this case in that a reasonable person is expected to take reasonably prompt steps to determine her entitlement to Employment Insurance benefits.    Ignorance of the law and good faith, the reasons offered for the delay of nine months in this case, have been held to be insufficient to amount to good cause.

[6]                We are, therefore, bound reluctantly to allow the application for judicial review and to remit the matter to the Chief Umpire or his designate for reconsideration in accordance with these reasons.

   AA. M. Linden@

                                                                                                                                                      J.A.                           

                                                                                                                                                           

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                                                                              A-242-05

STYLE OF CAUSE:                                                             THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

OF CANADA

Applicant

and

EMILY CARRY                                  

Respondent

PLACE OF HEARING:                                                        TORONTO, ONTARIO

DATE OF HEARING:                                                           NOVEMBER 3, 2005

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF

THE COURT BY:                                                                 (LINDEN, ROTHSTEIN & PELLETIER JJ.A.)

DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY:                            LINDEN J.A.

APPEARANCES:

Sadian Campbell	FOR THE APPLICANT
Emily Carry	FOR THE RESPONDENT

John H. Sims Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada	FOR THE APPLICANT
Emily Carry Toronto, Ontario	FOR THE RESPONDENT