Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
week of unemployment |
work without earnings |
|
|
Summary:
Lutheran Pastor who works without salary for part of the year. Under ss. 10(2) a contract continues and claimant is not unemployed if he receives his usual remuneration. This condition is not satisfied and contract not continuing. This Umpire's judgment quashed by FC.
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
interruption of earnings |
charter |
|
|
Summary:
By para. 44(r), the Commission is empowered to make regulations "defining and determining when an interruption of earnings occurs". Pursuant to that power, s. 37 has been made, whereof it is necessary to recite only subsection (1).
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
interruption of earnings |
conditions required |
|
|
Summary:
The 3 requirements of ss. 37(1) are discrete. Claimant here must prove both that he was laid off or separated from employment and that he was not being paid. Since the requirements are discrete, not being paid, while evidence of layoff or separation, cannot be conclusive.
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
interruption of earnings |
conditions required |
non-monetary income |
|
Summary:
Pastor whose duties did not change whether paid or not. The only criteria for paying him was availability of funds. He was never laid off. His contract of service, albeit for very little in the way of pecuniary consideration, continued in effect.
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
interruption of earnings |
conditions required |
7 days without work |
|
Summary:
Pastor whose duties did not change whether paid or not and the only criteria for paying him was availability of funds. He was never laid off. His contract of service, albeit for very little in the way of pecuniary consideration, continued in effect.
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
interruption of earnings |
layoff or separation |
requirement |
|
Summary:
Pastor whose duties did not change whether paid or not and the only criteria for paying him was availability of funds. It seems clear he was never laid off. He was expected to continue to do exactly what he had done while being paid and he, in fact, didprecisely that.