|
EI - Antedate. Musani v. Canada (Attorney General)
In Musani v. Canada (Attorney General) (Fed CA, 2026) the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed a JR, this brought against "a decision of the Appeal Division of the Social Security Tribunal of Canada, which dismissed her appeal from a decision of the Tribunal’s General Division", this respecting the denial of the applicant's "request to antedate her claim for EI benefits; that is, to treat the claim as having been made earlier than it was".
Here the court considers the EI claim 'antedate' issue, which it found to be reasonably decided [paras 29-34]:[1] In this application, Farrah Musani seeks judicial review of a decision of the Appeal Division of the Social Security Tribunal of Canada, which dismissed her appeal from a decision of the Tribunal’s General Division. The General Division had for its part dismissed Ms. Musani’s appeal from a reconsideration decision of the Employment Insurance Commission rejecting her request to antedate her claim for EI benefits; that is, to treat the claim as having been made earlier than it was. By subsection 10(4) of the Employment Insurance Act, S.C. 1996, c. 23 [EI Act], a claim for benefits "“shall be regarded as having been made on an earlier day if the claimant shows that [they were] 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 […] claim was made.”"
....
[9] Referring to subsection 10(4) of the EI Act and to case law of this Court (Canada (Attorney General) v. Burke, 2012 FCA 139 at para. 5; Canada (Attorney General) v. Somwaru, 2010 FCA 336 at paras. 7-11; and Canada (Attorney General) v. Kaler, 2011 FCA 266 [Kaler] at paras. 4-7, the General Division held that to show good cause, an appellant must prove that they acted as a reasonable and prudent person would have acted in similar circumstances, and did so for the entire period of delay. They must also show either that they took reasonably prompt steps to ascertain their entitlement to benefits and their obligations under the law, or that there were exceptional circumstances that explain why they failed to do so. These requirements are "“both demanding and strict.”" Moreover, ignorance of the law, even if coupled with good faith, is not sufficient to establish good cause: Kaler at para. 4.
|
