| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
minor in extent |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant, a co-adventurer in a business, reported spending 35-40 hours on the business when he was working at the jobsites but left out the time he spent trying to acquire contracts since he did not draw a salary for this. The Umpire found that the BOR had not given sufficient weight to the "time spent" factor and allowed the Commission’s appeal. The FCA refused to intervene and dismissed the claimant’s request for judicial review.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
circumstances |
time spent |
|
Summary:
The claimant, a co-adventurer in a business, reported spending 35-40 hours on the business when he was working at the jobsites but left out the time he spent trying to acquire contracts since he did not draw a salary for this. The Umpire found that the BOR had not given sufficient weight to the "time spent" factor and allowed the Commission’s appeal. The FCA refused to intervene and dismissed the claimant’s request for judicial review.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
week of unemployment |
principal means of livelihood |
|
Summary:
The claimant, a co-adventurer in a business, reported spending 35-40 hours on the business when he was working at the jobsites but left out the time he spent trying to acquire contracts since he did not draw a salary for this. The Umpire found that the BOR had not given sufficient weight to the "time spent" factor and allowed the Commission’s appeal. The FCA refused to intervene and dismissed the claimant’s request for judicial review.
