Summary of Issue: Independent Workers

Decision A24.16 Full Text of Decision A24.16

This matter involves 4 applications for Judicial Review (JR) of 4 decisions (A-24-16, A-25-16, A-26-16, A-27-16).of the Social Security Tribunal (SST)-Appeal Division (AD) which determined that the claimant was not entitled to Employment Insurance (EI) benefits because of his involvement in his own companies.

Decision 76074 Full Text of Decision 76074

The Commission issued a notice of disentitlement pursuant to ss. 9 and 11 of the Act and s. 30 of the Regulations to the Act for failing to prove he was unemployed. The claimant established a claim effective April 26, 2009. He had last worked as a part-time teacher from January 13, 2006 to April 24, 2009. He advised the Commission that she started to work on a contract basis. A copy of his contract clearly states “Contrat entrepreneur”, the claimant was an entrepreneur working out of his home four to six hours per day at $24.00 and was working without supervision or control from the school. He advised he was a self-employed as an English teacher and that his remuneration was sufficient for his need and that he was not seeking employment. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed.

Decision 75760 Full Text of Decision 75760

The Commission's decided not to pay him E.I. benefits because the claimant was self-employed and could not be considered unemployed. The claimant stated that he was spending all his time on his business, rather than looking for other work. He was the sole owner and had no one to help him. He spent more than 12 hours a day on his business. The claimant’s appeal is dismissed by the Umpire.

Decision A-0019.99 Full Text of Decision A-0019.99

Claimant ran a guest house, where she lived and provided service 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. She was considered not to be unemployed because of the time she devoted to the business. Decision upheld by BOR and Umpire. FCA determined that claimant could not be doing volunteer work because she was lodged free of charge and was supported by government grants. Furthermore, because of the nature of the contract between the claimant and the government, the claimant was a self-employed person within the meaning of s. 43 of the Regulations.

Decision A-0707.94 Full Text of Decision A-0707.94

FCA is of the view that it was open to the Umpire to set aside the Commission's decision with respect to the applicability of SS. 43(2) of the UIR. Held that the Commission failed to have regard to evidence that the claimant had operated these businesses for many years while holding full-time employment elsewhere. By taking this evidence into account there was a basis for the Umpire concluding as he did that the claimant's work at the businesses was minor only.

Decision 26138 Full Text of Decision 26138

For some 25 years, claimant gainfully employed while being the owner of two successful businesses. He claims he is spending only 4 to 6 hours a week into the businesses. Taking into consideration the claimant's total investment in his operations as well as the total of his assets and liabilities, the Commission was of the view that the nature and the magnitude of both businesses would require much more attention than the claimant says he gives to it. Claimant considered not unemployed; decision upheld by the BOR. Decision reversed by the Umpire who held that the ownership of any business is not determinative of self-employment. Decision appealed to the FCA. See FCA A-0707.94.

Decision 12924 Full Text of Decision 12924

Self-employed at times and under contract at others. The mere fact that he is seeking employment which, should it materialize, may be employment in which he controls his hours is not sufficient to establish that he is now employed in such employment. [p. 5]

Decision A-0531.85 Full Text of Decision A-0531.85

Contract of service or for services? 4 tests discussed: control, ownership of tools, chance of profit or risk of loss, integration or organization.