Reconsideration (Employment Insurance)

Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 ©
Date Retrieved:	2024-11-26
CLNP Page ID:	1457
Page Categories:	Employment Insurance
Citation:	Reconsideration (Employment Insurance), CLNP 1457, <3X>, retrieved on 2024-11-26
Editor:	MKent
Last Updated:	2021/08/25

Need Legal Help?
Call (888) 655-1076

Join our ranks and become a Ninja Initiate today

Reconsideration Request Regulations SOR/2013-93

General circumstances

1 (1) For the purposes of paragraph 112(1)(b) of the Employment Insurance Act and subject to subsection (2), the Commission may allow a longer period to make a request for reconsideration of a decision if the Commission is satisfied that there is a reasonable explanation for requesting a longer period and the person has demonstrated a continuing intention to request a reconsideration.

Particular circumstances

(2) The Commission must also be satisfied that the request for reconsideration has a reasonable chance of success, and that no prejudice would be caused to the Commission or a party by allowing a longer period to make the request, if the request for reconsideration

(a) is made after the 365-day period after the day on which the decision was communicated to the person;

(b) is made by a person who submitted another application for benefits after the decision was communicated to the person; or

(c) is made by a person who has requested the Commission to rescind or amend the decision under section 111 of the Employment Insurance Act.

A. H. v Canada Employment Insurance Commission, 2014 CanLII 98695 (SST)

[23] In this case, since the Claimant submitted his request for reconsideration more than 365 days after the August 18, 2010 decision was rendered and communicated to him, the Commission may allow a longer period to make a request for reconsideration of that decision if it is satisfied of that all 4 factors in section 1 of the Reconsideration Request Regulations are met. That is, the Commission must be satisfied that:

(a) there is a reasonable explanation for requesting the longer period and,

(b) the Claimant has demonstrated a continuing intention to request a reconsideration and,

(c) the request for reconsideration has a reasonable chance of success and,

(d) no prejudice would be caused to the Commission or other parties by allowing the longer period to make the request.

(...)

[26] Similarly, the Member notes that paragraph 112(1)(b) of the EI Act and section 1 of the Reconsideration Request Regulations stipulate that the Commission may allow a longer period to make a request for reconsideration of a decision. This wording is similar to that which was found previous in section 114 of the EI Act. The Member therefore finds that a decision by the Commission pursuant to the Reconsideration Request Regulations is a discretionary one.

(...)

[29] Firstly, the Commission considered all 4 factors in the Reconsideration Request Regulation. It submits that the Claimant confirmed receipt of the Commission’s decision dated August 18, 2010 and that he was subsequently in receipt of statements of debt. The Claimant submitted that he had forgotten about the debt until the CRA sought repayment in April 2014, and that he was too busy to request a reconsideration decision any earlier. The Commission concluded that the Claimant did not provide a reasonable explanation nor did his reasons constitute special circumstances in order to extend the reconsideration period. Further, the Commission considered that there is no evidence on file of the Claimant contacting the Commission to seek resolution to the debt. It therefore concluded that the Claimant did not establish a continuing intention to resolve this matter. Finally, the Commission indicated that it is not satisfied that the request for reconsideration has a reasonable chance of success, and that no prejudice would be caused by allowing a longer period to make the request. Accordingly, the Commission submitted that it considered all the pertinent circumstances thus exercising its discretion judicially. Also, it submitted since the Claimant did not meet the factors in subsection 1(1) of the Reconsideration Request Regulations, it had to deny the Claimant’s request for an extension of the 30-day reconsideration period. The Member notes that the Commission considered, but did not provide an explanation as to why it was not satisfied that the factors stipulated in subsection 1(2) of the Reconsideration Request Regulations were not met. The Member finds however, that the way in which section 1of the Reconsideration Request Regulations is worded, the Commission must be satisfied that all of the factors therein are met before granting the extension. Since it was not satisfied that the factors in subsection 1(1) were not met, it could (and did) deny the request on that basis alone.

D. H. v Canada Employment Insurance Commission, 2019 SST 959 (CanLII)

[22] I cannot substitute my decision for that of the Commission unless it did not act judicially. I find that the Commission acted judicially in its decision that the Claimant did not have a reasonable explanation for his delay or a continuing intention to request a reconsideration. There is no evidence before me that the Commission acted in bad faith or for an improper purpose. The Commission took into account the relevant factors and did not take into account any irrelevant factors. The Commission considered the Claimant’s explanation for the delay and his submissions. The Claimant repeated his explanation at the hearing and raised no new evidence or submissions. The Commission did not act in a discriminatory manner. I must show deference to the Commission’s decision and cannot substitute my decision for the Commission’s decision.

[23] I find that the Commission exercised its discretion judicially when it considered the Claimant’s request for an extension of time to file his request for reconsideration. Therefore, I cannot interfere with the Commission’s discretionary decision to refuse the extension of time.