Summary of Issue

Decision 36921 Full Text of Decision 36921

A person, albeit a co-adventurer, who works gratuitously in an effort to assist a spouse, another family member, or a friend, to establish or maintain a business venture can hardly be said to be employed to an extent that he or she would normally follow that employment as a principal means of livelihood.**Claimant's wife was sole proprietor. Claimant was not self-employed, operating a business or a partner. He had advanced funds for the security deposit and had personally guaranteed his wife's obligations to her landlord. In the broad sense he was a co-adventurer.**N.B. Commission appealed this case to the FCA since the Umpire erred in fact and in law. Evidence shows that claimant devoted 49 hrs a week to the business in which he was co-adventurer, he therefore cannot benefit from ss. 43(2) of the Reg. on the sole basis that he was working gratuitously for his wife.

Decision 29143 Full Text of Decision 29143

In my view the word "co-adventure" covers the concept of a joint venture but not the relationship between a shareholder and a company.

Decision 21966 Full Text of Decision 21966

Store managed by husband who has most of the shares. Claimant devotes over 30 hours a week to it. She must be considered as engaged in a co-adventure. The fact that she held only 1% of the shares is not determinative. Family enterprise. She would profitdirectly or indirectly.

Decision 20308 Full Text of Decision 20308

Claimant argued that he was only 1/3 shareholder. The issue of company ownership is irrelevant. One can be engaged in a co-adventure within reg. 43(1)(a) without being legally connected to the business, as stated in TREMBLAY. He clearly had an interest in the family business.

Decision 19261 Full Text of Decision 19261

After dismissal of insured, spouse acquires convenience store; insured loans money to spouse and endorses a loan to that effect. Based on TREMBLAY & LAROUCHE, insured is now coadventurer; not unemployed; Board decision overturned.

Decision 14241 Full Text of Decision 14241

Evidence largely supported conclusion that he was personal owner of this fitness centre. However, even if centre assumed to have belonged to his company, nonetheless he was operating a business on his own behalf or as a co-adventurer. Cites LAROUCHE.

Decision 14085 Full Text of Decision 14085

Is co-adventurer by reason of 60% ownership of shares of agricultural company. He was person who invested funds and provided for other financial needs.

Decision 12437 Full Text of Decision 12437

4 founders of a company who fall into category of co-adventurers within meaning of Ontario law as cited.

Decision A-0674.85 Full Text of Decision A-0674.85

The Board found that claimants could not be legally connected with operation of the motel. Co-adventure defined. A person is engaged in a co-adventure in a business when, regardless of the legal forms, he has an interest in it with others.

Decision 10946 Full Text of Decision 10946

Refer to: A-0674.85