The Claimant’s wife is severely disabled and requires multiple medications.She became seriously ill in 2013 and received troubling test results that also affected the Claimant’s state of mind. Sedran stated from his perspective, and his professional opinion, the Claimant’s mental state was significantly impaired by the psychological stresses he was experiencing and affected his decision-making and ability to cope. The Claimant presents the argument that the Commission relies on CUB 73573 for the idea that it is incumbent upon the Claimant to take steps to inquire about his rights and responsibilities with respect to a claim for benefits.The Claimant further argues that he did make such an inquiry which confirmed his understanding that his severance package would have to be exhausted before he was eligible for benefits.) because he had good cause for the delay throughout the entire period. The Tribunal must decide whether the Claimant should be allowed an antedate of his initial claim for benefits pursuant to subsection 10(4) of the states an initial claim for benefits made after the day when the Claimant was first qualified to make the claim shall be regarded as having been made on an earlier day if the Claimant shows that the Claimant qualified to receive benefits on the earlier day and that there was good cause for the delay throughout the period beginning on the earlier day and ending on the day when the initial claim was made.The Tribunal finds the Claimant’s reasons to wait to apply and the fact it took it upon himself to determine when that would be may have been good reasons not to apply, however they are not in accordance with the jurisprudence and are not considered good cause.
He stated he contacted Service Canada to confirm that the monies would be allocated based on his normal weekly earnings and to file when the severance ended which he calculated this period to be around the end of June.On January 13, 2014 the Claimant made a request for reconsideration.On February 14, 2014 the Commission maintained its original decision and the Claimant appealed to the Tribunal. On November 22, 2013 the Claimant submitted a subsequent request to the Commission has he had not received a response to his antedate application. The Claimant received upon his separation from his employment 88.47 in lieu of wages, a ,000.00 bonus, ,000.00 severance pay and 11.96 in vacation pay. David Sedran, the Claimant’s family physician indicated the Claimant was under extraordinary and unusual stress related to his job loss, family illness and financial pressure. Sedran was aware of the circumstances throughout the year of 2013. In the case of Albrecht the claimant’s ignorance of the law constituted good cause, however the Tribunal does not see how the reason of ignorance of the law can be justified and applied in this case.