Canada (Attorney General) v. Carry

Canada (Attorney General) v. Carry
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2005-11-03
Neutral citation
2005 FCA 367
File numbers
A-242-05
Decision Content
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
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
John H. Sims Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
FOR THE APPLICANT
Emily Carry
Toronto, Ontario
FOR THE RESPONDENT