Summary of Issue: Shareholders

Decision A-0144.98 Full Text of Decision A-0144.98

To avoid closure of the firm where the claimants had been working, they each contributed $10,000, and agreed to pay $18,182 over a 10-year period. Meanwhile, they had volunteered long hours of their time to attempt to save the business. It was determined that the claimants were not unemployed, because they worked full working weeks under section 43(1)(a) of the Regulations. Decision upheld [by] the Umpire. FCA agreed with the Umpire's decision and stated that the question to be answered in all these cases was whether the claimants had worked full working weeks. FCA found that, under the circumstances, the answer to this question remained the same, whether section 43 or 44 of the Regulations was applied.

Decision A-1001.96 Full Text of Decision A-1001.96

See summary indexed under A-0999.96, same decision.

Decision A-1000.96 Full Text of Decision A-1000.96

See summary indexed under A-0999.96, same decision.

Decision A-0999.96 Full Text of Decision A-0999.96

The claimant was a 25% shareholder, was the only director and ran his business on a full-time basis. The Commission determined that he was not unemployed because he was operating a business on his own account or in a co-adventure. Counsel for the claimant argued that the decision of the Minister of National Revenue regarding the insurability of the claimant’s employment was binding on the Commission in respect of entitlement to benefit, at the very least as far as the claimant’s unemployed status was concerned, and that it was appropriate to go back to the Venditelli rule. FCA found that this interpretation was based on a misunderstanding of the Act and of its operation. FCA maintained that insurability of an employment and entitlement to benefit are two separate factors that the Commission must assess in relation to two separate periods. Parliament wished to subject the analysis of these two factors to separate schemes, which must not be confused. Consequently, the decision rendered in respect of insurability is binding on the Commission only in regard to that issue, not when the Commission has to determine entitlement to benefit.

Decision A-0698.95 Full Text of Decision A-0698.95

Umpire concluded that the claimant decided to use the facade of a corporation to camouflage the fact that he was working and receiving regular earnings. The existence of the corporation cannot be relied upon to insulate him in this way. The fact that the claimant's wife held a majority share ownership in the company, of which there were no other shareholders apart from claimant and his wife, no other directors and no other employees, during the time in question, clearly brings the claimant's activity under the definition set out in Reg. 43(1). Decision upheld by FCA.

Decision 35986 Full Text of Decision 35986

Refer to FCA A-0999.96

Decision 35988 Full Text of Decision 35988

Refer to FCA A-0999.96

Decision 35987 Full Text of Decision 35987

Refer to FCA A-0999.96

Decision 20431 Full Text of Decision 20431

There is no doubt that being a shareholder in a corporation does not, by itself, disentitle one to UI benefits. But if one essentially controls a corporation or is its directing mind, it is reasonable to conclude that that individual is engaged in a business on his own account.

Decision 20356 Full Text of Decision 20356

Secretary on maternity leave from non-insurable work in company for which she owns 45% of the shares. Being shareholder does not mean one is "engaged in the operation of a business". Something more is required. Not running the business. Someone else hired to perform her duties.

Decision 17678 Full Text of Decision 17678

Disentitled as being self-employed or operating a business under 43(1)(a) when in fact she was neither. She was one of 3 equal shareholders in a limited liability company and it is that company which owned the business which was being carried on.

Decision 13533 Full Text of Decision 13533

The business was not the claimant's. He owned only 15% of the shares. His partial ownership was an investment separate and apart from his occasional employment by the company. His connection was that of employer and employee.