Date:
20130612
Docket:
A-548-12
Citation:
2013 FCA 157
CORAM: NOËL
J.A.
DAWSON J.A.
NEAR
J.A.
BETWEEN:
ZHILA
KAMGAR
Applicant
and
ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
Heard
at Toronto, Ontario, on June 12, 2013.
Judgment
delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on June 12, 2013.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
BY: DAWSON J.A.
Date:
20130612
Docket:
A-548-12
Citation:
2013 FCA 157
CORAM: NOËL
J.A.
DAWSON J.A.
NEAR
J.A.
BETWEEN:
ZHILA
KAMGAR
Applicant
and
ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
OF THE COURT
(Delivered
from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on June 12, 2013)
DAWSON J.A.
[1]
Under
the Employment Insurance Act, S.C. 1996, c. 23, a claim for benefits may
be made after the time prescribed for making the claim if a claimant meets the
requirements set out in subsection 10(5) of the Act. To do so, a claimant must
show that there was good cause for the delay in making the claim, and that the
good cause existed throughout the entire period of delay. The jurisprudence of
this Court is settled that to establish good cause for delay a claimant must
demonstrate that she did what a reasonable person in her situation would have
done to satisfy herself as to her rights and obligations under the Act. See, for
example, Canada (Attorney General) v. Albrecht, [1985] 1 F.C.
710.
[2]
Put
another way, a reasonable person is expected to take reasonably prompt steps to
determine her entitlement to benefits, and ignorance of the law and good faith
have been held not to amount to good cause (Canada (Attorney General) v.
Carry, 2005 FCA 367, 344 N.R. 142).
[3]
The
issue raised in this application for judicial review is whether an Umpire
rendered an unreasonable decision when he found the applicant had not shown
good cause for her 30-month delay in claiming regular employment insurance
benefits? In the Umpire’s view, the Board of Referees committed no error of
fact or law when it found the applicant’s good faith and ignorance of the Act’s
requirements did not amount to good cause (CUB 80062).
[4]
In
the materials filed on her appeal to the Umpire, the applicant stated that
after she had exhausted her initial entitlement to sickness benefits under the
Act, she “did not know that I could be eligible for the [Employment Insurance]
regular benefit after my [Employment Insurance] illness benefit ended” and that
the Employment Insurance “representative failed to advise me to apply for the
[Employment Insurance] regular benefit” (respondent’s record, page 56).
[5]
In
our view, the applicant’s statement, quoted above, supported the Umpire’s conclusion
that the applicant had not established good cause for her delay in claiming
benefits because the delay was the result of her failure to promptly determine
her entitlement to benefits and her consequent ignorance of her entitlement to
regular benefits. As the Umpire noted in his reasons:
Here though the claimant had
contacts with the Commission before January 2012, it was not for inquiring
about regular benefits; had she inquired, she would have been told to apply,
just like she was told in January 2012.
[6]
The
Umpire’s decision has, therefore, not been shown to be unreasonable.
[7]
It
follows that, notwithstanding Mr. Jordaan’s forceful submissions on behalf of
the applicant, the application for judicial review will be dismissed. As the
respondent did not seek costs, no costs will be ordered.
“Eleanor R. Dawson”
FEDERAL COURT OF
APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-548-12
(JUDICIAL REVIEW FROM AN ORDER OF
THE DECISION OF THE OFFICE OF THE UMPIRE DATED OCTOBER 26, 2012, FILE: CUB
80062)
STYLE OF CAUSE: Zhila Kamgar v. Attorney General of Canada
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: June
12, 2013
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
OF THE COURT BY: (Noël, Dawson & Near JJ.A.)
DELIVERED FROM THE
BENCH BY: Dawson
J.A.
APPEARANCES:
Mr.
Christiaan Jordaan
|
FOR
THE APPLICANT
|
Ms.
Laura Tausky
|
FOR
THE RESPONDENT
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Bennett
Jones LLP
Toronto, Ontario
|
FOR THE APPLICANT
|
William F. Pentney
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Toronto, Ontario
|
FOR
THE RESPONDENT
|