Summary of Issue

Decision A0339.08 Full Text of Decision A0339.08

The claimant was director, president and majority shareholder of a business and he operated from his home. He was self-employed, he did not accept any other employment, made no effort to search for employment and spent most of his time on his business. He did not report his earnings from the business because they were used to repay his debt and he did not have wages to report. The Commission concluded that the claimant was not unemployed or available for work and imposed a retroactive disentitlement, a penalty for making false or misleading statements and a notice of violation. The Umpire confirmed that the BOR was justified in fact and in law in concluding that EI must not serve as supplementary income for the claimant as an entrepreneur, and that the business earnings, even though they were not distributed to shareholders, still constituted earnings under the Act. The FCA allowed the judicial review application and restored the penalty and the violation.

Decision 40361 Full Text of Decision 40361

Claimant was self-employed as a real estate agent while receiving benefits. Failing to declare on his cards that he was working on contract as a real estate agent and the fact that he repeated the same false answers showed that he acted knowingly and illegally.

Decision A-0600.94 Full Text of Decision A-0600.94

The UI system does not exist to provide a salary for all those who wish to start a new business and say they do not believe that doing so is working. Despite professed ignorance, depending on the evidence and common sense, they may be disbelieved and knowledge of falsity may in fact be present.

Decision 25451 Full Text of Decision 25451

Refer to: A-0600.94

Decision 26818 Full Text of Decision 26818

Claimant said he associated the concept of work with the concept of income and, while he was establishing his own business, though he was working very hard and had devoted all of his capital to it, he was not getting any income. While I might not have reached the same conclusion as the Board, that is not the test.

Decision 26180 Full Text of Decision 26180

The claimant had to provide a reasonable explanation to justify his many statements to the effect that he was not working while he was devoting 50 to 60 hours per week to the restaurant. The Board was not convinced that the lack of pay explained the situation. A question of facts.

Decision 26017 Full Text of Decision 26017

Insofar as nothing in the question "Have you worked?" refers to the status of director or to the operation of a business (he denied having worked), I find that the Commission did not discharge the burden of proof it had to assume. However, the claimant is found not to be unemployed.

Decision 23694 Full Text of Decision 23694

Leasing premises, setting up an account with Revenue Canada, employing an accountant and having a business bank account were all clear criteria of working, whether remuneration was received or not. I cannot accept that he did not really consider he was working. The test is not a subjective one.

Decision 18152 Full Text of Decision 18152

As there is another question on the Report Card as to whether one earned money during the period in question, he must be taken to have understood that the question "Did you work" meant literally what it said. Claimant only thought that the should answer "yes" to "Did you work" if he had made money out of his work. Such an explanation cannot be taken seriously, particularly by someone intelligent and literate enough to operate the kind of business in which hewas engaged.

Decision 18060 Full Text of Decision 18060

It is clear that he did not "knowingly" do so. His explanation is entirely credible. For him, it was not work because he was not employed; hours spent were few and flexible and remuneration minimal. He states, however, it was not correct to say "no" to "will you receive money".

Decision 17045 Full Text of Decision 17045

It is clear from the case law that there must be a deliberate intent to deceive. Here, claimant did not receive any remuneration from his self-employment and did not consider it to be "work". He considered his statements true, so he did not know them tobe false.

Decision 15254 Full Text of Decision 15254

Claimant answered no because he did not receive any money from his business. That answer is reasonable and tended to negate any presumption of mens rea. The Board erred in equating incorrectness with "knowingly false". No attempt to conceal.

Decision 15116 Full Text of Decision 15116

Spent 30 to 40 hours a week seeking work as a self-employed urban planner; zero income from 25-8 until November. Thought that he was not working before obtaining a contract in November; given the benefit of the doubt.

Decision 14214 Full Text of Decision 14214

Penalty of $1738. Aswered no to "Did you work?" because he understood this refers to employment with a compensation. That explanation is entirely credible. It is the natural reaction to the question.

Decision 13606 Full Text of Decision 13606

Having regard to hours (15 to 20 per week) devoted to it and because they received no pay, they believed they were not working within the ordinary meaning of the word. An ordinary person believes that he or she is not working if he or she is not paid.

Decision 11791 Full Text of Decision 11791

Propriétaire à 25 % de l'entreprise familiale; y consacre 6 ou 7 heures par jour comme il faisait avant d'être licencié ailleurs. A répondu non à la question « Avez-vous travaillé? » parce que, pour lui, c'était un investissement et non du travail; pas de salaire; n'a rien caché.

Decision 11544 Full Text of Decision 11544

Having made the legal and very technical determination that claimant was employed, the Board found statements made were false but failed to consider whether he knew. His evidence is he did not receive any remuneration from business regarded as investment. No attempt to conceal.

Decision 10566A Full Text of Decision 10566A

Part-owner of restaurant at which he works full-time. Penalty of $1,616. The reporting cards are quite simple and clear. A man of claimant's background and obvious formal education could easily understand the questions. He always answered in the negative.

Decision 11071 Full Text of Decision 11071

Claimant believed that he was not working because he was earning no money from the company. In failing to consider this question, the Board committed an error of law. Penalty of $2310 removed.