Date: 20050407
Docket: A-341-04
Citation: 2005 FCA 123
CORAM: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
NOËL J.A.
NADON J.A.
BETWEEN:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Applicant
and
DANIEL BEAUDIN
Respondent
Hearing held at Montréal, Quebec, April 7, 2005.
Judgment delivered from the bench at Montréal, Quebec, April 7, 2005.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
Date: 20050407
Docket: A-341-04
Citation: 2005 FCA 123
CORAM: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
NOËL J.A.
NADON J.A.
BETWEEN:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Applicant
and
DANIEL BEAUDIN
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the bench at Montréal, Quebec, April 7, 2005)
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
[1] Although the facts cited by the respondent and the situation in which he found himself merit our sympathy, we are of the opinion that the application for judicial review of the decision of the Umpire in file CUB 60672 should be allowed.
[2] This Court's case law on the interpretation and application of subsection 10(4) of the Employment Insurance Act, S.C. 1996, c. 23 (the Act), reproduced below, is consistent:
|
Late initial claims 10(4) An initial claim for benefits made after the day when the claimant was first qualified to make the claim shall be regarded as having been made on an earlier day if the claimant shows that the claimant qualified to receive benefits on the earlier day and that there was good cause for the delay throughout the period beginning on the earlier day and ending on the day when the initial claim was made. |
Demande initiale tardive 10(4) Lorsque le prestataire présente une demande initiale de prestations après le premier jour où il remplissait les conditions requises pour la présenter, la demande doit être considérée comme ayant été présentée à une date antérieure si le prestataire démontre qu'à cette date antérieure il remplissait les conditions requises pour recevoir des prestations et qu'il avait, durant toute la période écoulée entre cette date antérieure et la date à laquelle il présente sa demande, un motif valable justifiant son retard. |
(Emphasis added)
[3] According to the judgments in Canada (Attorney General) v. Smith, [1993] F.C.J. No. 368, Canada (Attorney General) v. Rouleau, [1995] F.C.J. No. 1203 and Shebib v. Canada (Attorney General), [2003] F.C.J. No. 281, to name only a few, bona fides and ignorance of the law are not, in themselves, a valid reason justifying delay in filing an initial claim for employment insurance benefits following a dismissal. However, they do not exclude the existence of a valid reason if the claimant shows that he acted as a reasonable person would have in the same situation in order to satisfy himself of both his rights and his obligations under the Act.
[4] In the case at bar, the justification given by the respondent essentially consists of the fact that he was unfamiliar with the employment insurance system and that is why he filed his initial claim almost one year after his dismissal: his claim was made on August 18, 2003, while his termination of employment dated from September 27, 2002.
[5] It is worth noting that subsection 10(4) of the Act is not the product of a mere legislative whim. It contains a policy, in the form of a requirement, which is instrumental in the sound and efficient administration of the Act. On the one hand, this policy helps "to assure the proper administration and the efficient processing of various claims" and "to enable the Commission to review constantly the continuing eligibility of a claimant to whom benefits are being paid": see CUB 18145, June 29, 1999, by Umpire Joyal, and CUB 23893, June 27, 1994, by Umpire Rouleau. Antedating the claim for benefits may adversely affect the integrity of the system, in that it gives a claimant a retroactive and unconditional award of benefits, without any possibility of verifying the eligibility criteria during the period of retroactivity: see CUB 13007, December 12, 1986, and CUB 14019, August 7, 1987, by Umpire Joyal.
[6] Furthermore, a sound and equitable administration of the system requires that the Commission engage in a quick verification that is as contemporaneous as possible with the events and circumstances giving rise to the claim for benefits: see CUB 15236A, April 30, 1987, by Umpire Strayer. Otherwise, the Commission finds itself in the difficult position of having to engage in a job or process of reconstruction of the events, with the costs and hazards pertaining to such a process. This is what explains the principle, long established by the jurisprudence of this Court, that ignorance of the Act does not excuse a delay in filing an initial claim for benefits.
[7] The Board of Referees erred in law in accepting the respondent's bona fides as a justification for the delay in filing the initial claim. The Umpire should have allowed the Commission's appeal and restored its decision: Canada (Attorney General) v. Johnson (2004), 318 N.R. 354, at page 357. Instead, he added to the Board of Referees' error by adding thereto and recognizing ignorance of the law as valid.
[8] For these reasons, the application for judicial review will be allowed, but without costs in the circumstances. The decision of the Umpire will be set aside and the matter will be returned to the Chief Umpire or to the person he designates for redetermination on the basis that the Commission's appeal from the decision of the Board of Referees, dated October 29, 2003, should be allowed and the Commission's decision that the respondent has not provided a valid reason for his delay in filing his initial claim for benefit should be restored.
"Gilles Létourneau"
J.A.
Certified true translation
Jacques Deschênes, LLB
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-341-04
STYLE: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA v. DANIEL BEAUDIN
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal
DATE OF HEARING: April 7, 2005
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
OF THE COURT: LÉTOURNEAU
NOËL
NADON, JJ.A.
DELIVERED FROM THE
BENCH BY: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
APPEARANCES:
Paul Deschênes FOR THE APPLICANT
Michel Huot FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
John H. Sims
Deputy Attorney General of Canada FOR THE APPLICANT
Turgeon, Fauteux, Therrien & Associés
Montréal, Quebec FOR THE RESPONDENT