Canada ( Attorney General ) v. Ehman
A-360-95
Robertson J.A.
9/2/96
5 pp.
Respondent decided not to file claim for unemployment insurance benefits in timely fashion in view of possibility benefits would be garnisheed under then existing garnishment order issued pursuant to provincial maintenance enforcement legislation-Rather, chose to wait until she and husband negotiated maintenance issue before filing and then requested claim be antedated-Respondent attempting to reach settlement with husband with respect to amount of arrears in court-ordered child support payments and reduction in monthly support obligation-Application for judicial review of Umpire's decision allowing appeal from Board of Referees' decision dismissing appeal from Commission's decision refusing claimant's request to antedate claim on ground claimant did not have good cause for delay-Application allowed-No legal basis on which Umpire could interfere with Commission's decision upheld by Board-Act cannot be invoked so as to defeat objectives underlying another statutory regime and to negate intended effect of valid court order-Claimant did not possess unilateral right to defer receipt of monies otherwise payable under Act-Any dispute with respect to actual amount in arrears could not override claimant's obligation to provide child support as required by court order, or her husband's right to obtain payment on behalf of child as reflected in garnishment order-Whether or not claimant acting on advice of lawyer totally irrelevant.