Highlights of Noteworthy Decisions

Decision 2634 15 ER
D. Corbett
  • Reconsideration (consideration of evidence)
  • Time limits (appeal) (diligence of representative)

The worker applied for reconsideration of Decision No. 2634/15E.

In Decision No. 2634/15E, the original vice-chair denied the worker an extension of the time to appeal. The delay was about four months and was due to inadvertence on the part of the worker's representative. The original vice-chair referred to Decision No. 3350/00E, noting that, generally, failure of a representative, without more, is not sufficient basis to extend the time to appeal.
The Tribunal Chair noted that, while that comment in Decision No. 3350/00E continues to resonate today, Decision No. 3350/00E granted the extension of time, based on delay of only 26 days and clear evidence of intention to appeal within the deadline.
Both Decision No. 3350/00E and Decision No. 2634/15E listed factors the Tribunal commonly considers in time extension applications. The original vice-chair in Decision No. 2634/15E focused on the failure of the representative to file on time, without considering and weighing the other factors.
The Tribunal Chair considered those factors and found: clear intention to appeal within the deadline; diligence on the part of the worker in following up; error in the office of the representative but new evidence in the form of an affidavit from a paralegal in that office outlining their system designed to avoid missing of time limits; lack of prejudice to the employer as a result of the delay; no suggestion that the case was stale.
In the circumstances, the application to reconsider was granted.
The Tribunal Chair went on to consider the merits of the time extension application and concluded, based on the above, that the time extension should be granted.