MAJORITY REPORT.

205

or Th

any insurance funds which are available for such a purpose, and
even if funds were available, we doubt whether the course suggested
 would be desirable, as it might encourage laxity in the
payment of contributions at the proper time. Moreover, it
might prove embarrassing as a precedent if cited in support of a
similar demand in cases not involving bankruptcy, e.g., where
an employer had disappeared.

SECTION C.—ADMINISTRATION OF THE CASH
BENEFITS.

480. We have received very little evidence in criticism of the
provisions of the Act with regard to the administration of sickness
 and disablement benefits and the conditions to be complied
with by insured persons in order to obtain those benefits. There
are, however, a few points on which suggestions have been
made for minor modifications, and these we will now proceed to
examine.

LATE NOTICE OF ILLNESS.

481. Our attention was directed to the provisions of the Act
with regard to insured persons who do not give prompt notice
of an illness for which they desire to claim benefit. Prior to
1918 title to sickness benefit was not made conditional upon the
giving of notice of illness within any prescribed period after the
commencement of incapacity, and it was found that manly
claims for benefit were received from members after their
recovery, when it was no longer possible to supervise the claims.
Provision was therefore included in Section 12(2) of the 1918 Act
(now Section 13(4) of the 1924 Act) whereby an insured person
claiming sickness or disablement benefit is required to furnish
otice of incapacity to his society within three days of the com-Mencement
 of his illness, and if he does not do so, benefit does
Not in normal circumstances commence until the day following
the date of notice. The proviso to the subsection, however,
exempts from the operation of this clause those persons who are
able to satisfy the Society that they were ‘‘ not reasonably able *
to furnish notice within the prescribed time.

482. We are informed that the terms of the proviso to which
We have referred have been found in the light of experience to be
ot altogether satisfactory (Kinnear, Q. 23,495). Some Societies
Place a strict interpretation upon the phrase ‘‘ not reasonably
able,” and we understand that confirmation of the view taken
by those Societies is afforded by the findings of a referee
Appointed by the Minister under Section 90 of the 1924 Act in a
“ase recently referred to him on appeal, in which it was decided
that the words of the proviso must be construed as implying
Physical inability. Many cases arise, however, where in strictfess
 it may not be possible to contend that the person concerned
1s Physically unable to furnish notice of illness, but yet he