Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Judicial review focused on whether the Social Security Tribunal Appeal Division reasonably denied leave to appeal the refusal to antedate an EI application.

• The applicant sought to backdate his Employment Insurance (EI) claim after receiving CERB and CRB, aiming for more favorable tax treatment.

• The tribunal found the applicant did not show “good cause” for the late EI application, as required by the Employment Insurance Act.

• Arguments based on the applicant’s ADHD and lack of awareness of tax implications were considered but found insufficient.

• The court held that new issues not raised before the tribunal could not be considered on judicial review.

• No costs or damages were awarded; the application for judicial review was dismissed.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background and facts

John Contois, the applicant, lost his job in March 2020 due to the Covid-19 pandemic. He applied for and received the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) and later the Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB) until December 2020. In April 2022, he requested that his application for Employment Insurance (EI) benefits be antedated to March 2020, arguing that this would have resulted in more favorable tax treatment due to an inheritance he received from his father’s estate. His accountant advised that the clawback threshold was lower for CERB and CRB compared to EI, prompting the request to backdate his EI claim.

The Canada Employment Insurance Commission denied his request to antedate the EI application, finding he had not shown good cause for the delay. This decision was upheld by the General Division of the Social Security Tribunal, which acknowledged the applicant’s ADHD but concluded that his lack of awareness about the inheritance’s tax impact did not constitute good cause under the Employment Insurance Act. The Appeal Division of the Tribunal initially overturned the General Division’s decision due to an unrelated error of law but, upon redetermination, the General Division again dismissed the appeal. The Appeal Division then refused leave to appeal, stating there was no reasonable chance of success.

Legal analysis and court’s findings

On judicial review, the court examined whether the Appeal Division’s decision was reasonable. The court emphasized that arguments not raised before the tribunal could not be considered for the first time on judicial review. It found that the Appeal Division had reasonably determined the General Division made no reviewable errors in finding that the applicant did not establish good cause for the delayed EI application. The court noted that a reasonable and prudent person is expected to take prompt steps to inquire about their rights and obligations, and that ignorance of the law or tax implications does not meet the threshold for good cause.

The applicant’s arguments regarding his ADHD and the impact of his inheritance were considered but ultimately found insufficient to justify the delay. The court also clarified that the CRB and EI are separate programs under different statutes, and one does not replace the other.

Outcome

The court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding no legal basis to interfere with the tribunal’s decision. The Attorney General of Canada, represented by Nathan Beck, was the successful party. John Contois represented himself. No costs or damages were awarded to either party.