Antedate
I. The Legislation
In some circumstances a claimant may be allowed to file an initial claim for benefit at a time later then when it ought to have been made. These are the antedate provisions of the Act.
Subsection 10(4)Employment Insurance Act
II. What is Antedate
When a claimant delays in filing an application for benefits, the antedate provisions may allow the late application to be recognized as having been made earlier than it actually was. The purpose of antedate is to allow a claimant to be put in the position he or she would have been in had the delay in filing their claim for benefits not occurred.
Canada (A.G) v. Dunnington, [1984] 2 F.C. 978 (F.C.A.) A-1865-83
Canada (A.G.) v. Piche, [1981] 2 F.C. 311 (F.C.A.) A-248-80
III. Who Qualifies for Antedate
In order to receive antedate, a claimant must establish that:
- he or she was qualified to receive benefits on the date for which the antedate is sought; and,
- he or she had good cause for the delay between the date the claim is actually made and the date to which the claim is to be antedated.
Canada (A.G.) v. Read (1994), 169 N.R. 91 (F.C.A.) A-371-93
IV. What is "Good Cause"
The most frequent issue arising in antedate cases is whether a claimant has established "good cause" for the delay in filing their claim. In order to establish "good cause" a claimant must demonstrate that he or she did what a reasonable and prudent person would have done in the same circumstances. Each case must be judged on its own facts and to this extent no clear and easily applicable principle exists.
Malitsky v. Canada (A.G.), A-205-96, September 3, 1997 (F.C.A.)
Canada (A.G.) v. Ehman, A-360-95, February 9, 1996 (F.C.A.)
Canada (A.G.) v. Smith, [1993] 3 F.C. D-10 (F.C.A.) A-549-92
Canada (A.G.) v. Caron, (1986), 69 N.R. 132 (F.C.A.) A-395-85
Canada (A.G.) v. Albrecht, [1985] 1 F.C. 710 (F.C.A.) A-172-85
Filing a late application for benefits because of ignorance of the law or not understanding one's legal rights and obligations under the legislation does not, in and of itself, constitute "good cause". On the other hand, ignorance of the law does not necessarily preclude a finding of good cause. Many reasons, including ignorance of the law, may still constitute good cause, provided the claimant is able to establish that he or she acted as a reasonable and prudent person.
Canada (A.G.) v. Rouleau (1995), 187 N.R. 310 (F.C.A.) A-4-95
Canada (A.G.) v. Larouche (1994), 176 N.R. 69 (F.C.A.) A-644-93
Canada (A.G.) v. Caron, (1986), 69 N.R. 132 (F.C.A.) A-395-85
Canada (A.G.) v. Albrecht, [1985] 1 F.C. 710 (F.C.A.) A-1728-85
Canada (A.G.) v. Dunnington, [1984] 2 F.C. 978 (F.C.A.) A-1865-83
Pirotte v. U.I.C., [1977] 1 F.C. 314 (F.C.A.) A-108-76