Summary of Issue: Business

Decision A-0113.97 Full Text of Decision A-0113.97

The claimant worked many hours each week in order to build up his business, while he was claiming benefits. Umpire found that the claimant could not argue that he was not relying on his business as a principal means of livelihood, nor that he should not be deemed to have always worked full working weeks. FCA upheld the Umpire’s decision.

Decision 34019 Full Text of Decision 34019

Extensive coverage by the Umpire of the elements to be considered in a finding of not unemployed. Umpire recognized that FCA in Jouan (A-366-94) added a new wrinkle by putting the emphasis on the time factor but determined that it was still important toapply criteria of Schwenk (CUB 5454).

Decision 28124 Full Text of Decision 28124

Held that the Board erred in law, that it confused the concepts of unemployment and availability, that the claimant was not unemployed in regards with his business to which he devoted 40 hours a week at the time when he was employed elsewhere 60 hours per week.

Decision 17127 Full Text of Decision 17127

School bus driver who, with his wife, runs a service station throughout the year and claims to be unemployed in July and August, even though he devotes to it 6 to 7 hours per day and 7 days a week.

Decision 15043 Full Text of Decision 15043

Claimant and husband operating business 5 days a week from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Although it was not profitable, this is not pertinent as reg. 43(2) does not apply since the operation of a gift shop is not in itself a business so minor in extent...

Decision 13486A Full Text of Decision 13486A

Purchased convenience store with her husband; capital invested $100,000; worked there 40 hours per week; husband worked elsewhere during day; hired employees after 6 months. Analysis of each of factors in CUB-5454. Concluded that board not unreasonable.

Decision 14214 Full Text of Decision 14214

Refers to CUB 5454. Business not a success; it had no continuity. In this regard, I note one not dealing here with a claimant who has quit his job intending to open a business and using UI to subsidize it. Of crucial importance: business not in claimant's line.

Decision 13606 Full Text of Decision 13606

They intended to devote all their time to it; did not seek anything else. While at outset they worked only 15 to 20 hours per week, they intended to devote all their time to it in order to succeed. Not sufficient that they received no remuneration.

Decision 13238 Full Text of Decision 13238

The scheme of the Act is to mitigate against the rigours of unemployment and not to subsidize self-employed persons or those engaged in the operation of a business on their own account.

Decision 11791 Full Text of Decision 11791

25% interest in family restaurant. After layoff from other employment he continues to spend same time at restaurant: 7 hours a day. No remuneration as profits used to reduce long term debts. Another person would have to perform these duties in his absence.

Decision 11418 Full Text of Decision 11418

Frequently a business fails to make any profit in the initial stages. The business which claimant attempted to start could even have involved employing others. Such a business could hardly be seen as minor in extent which indeed was not claimant's intent.

Decision 10901 Full Text of Decision 10901

Mere fact that owned or co-owned convenience store did not necessarily mean not entitled. Presumption created by 43(1) may be rebutted under 43(2). This is a finding of fact by the board to the effect that the presumption was not rebutted.