Decision A-0281.95
Full Text of Decision A-0281.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
farming |
full working week |
|
Summary:
Alleged that contrary to Reg.42(2), no evidence submitted that claimant worked 5 days/week. Held that BOR was entitled to accept evidence as being probative of the fact that, by doing 60-70 hours each week, she had worked at least a 5-day week without the specific statement being made. Upheld by FCA
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
right of being represented |
|
|
| proof |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
| proof |
errors in law |
rules of evidence |
|
| board of referees |
right to be heard |
language to be used |
|
Decision 25973A
Full Text of Decision 25973A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
farming |
full working week |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0281.95
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
right of being represented |
|
|
| proof |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
| proof |
errors in law |
rules of evidence |
|
| board of referees |
right to be heard |
language to be used |
|
Decision 20266
Full Text of Decision 20266
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
farming |
full working week |
|
Summary:
Left full-time employment in order to obtain an agricultural loan of $40,000 stating that farming was his main occupation. Subsequently employed as school bus driver and makes a claim for UI benefits at the end of June.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
farming |
definition |
|
Decision 15700
Full Text of Decision 15700
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
farming |
full working week |
|
Summary:
Regulation 43(3) stipulating that a self-employed worker employed in agriculture is unemployed from 1-10 to 31-3 does not apply to the insured who was employed by a farmer, since she cannot be considered a self-employed worker.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
conditions required |
non-monetary income |
|
| earnings |
income |
in kind |
|
Decision 13942
Full Text of Decision 13942
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
farming |
full working week |
|
Summary:
Function of Reg. 42(2) is to define working week of an agricultural worker, not unit of measurement for a self-employed worker, which is the role of Reg. 43.
Decision 13835
Full Text of Decision 13835
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
farming |
full working week |
|
Summary:
Reg. 43(2) does not apply to a farm worker. Only 43(3) may exempt him from 43(1) and that applies only to the off season.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
partnership and co-adventure |
|
|
Decision 12341
Full Text of Decision 12341
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
farming |
full working week |
|
Summary:
Self-employed farmer deemed to be working for purposes of Reg. 42(2).
Decision 11634
Full Text of Decision 11634
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
farming |
full working week |
|
Summary:
Reg. 43(3) applies for benefit of claimant who is employed in farming and who cannot benefit from more general exception in 43(2).
Decision 68684
Full Text of Decision 68684
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
farming |
self-employed |
|
Summary:
The claimant's activities from April to September are a full time employment. The claimant is working in the spring getting his farm ready for planting and also keeps some livestock. Although this is a very small operation, it appears that he spends a considerable amount of time each week at that activity. After September, the claimant appears to be unemployed but this is his own business and it is up to him to determine when he closes down for the winter. The claimant is not unlike any other farmer in that he works during the spring, summer and fall and then during the winter there is not that much for the claimant to do other than to get things ready for the next season. Further, the evidence in this case does not show that the claimant has been working regularly at other activities and does not show an extensive job search during this period when he was involved in his farm activities. Surely a person who is involved 72 hours per week in farming activity from April to September would not be available to take on other employment. That shows that the claimant was involved in this operation in more than a minor extent.
Decision 68677
Full Text of Decision 68677
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
farming |
self-employed |
|
Summary:
Despite the ruling of the Canada Revenue Agency that the claimant was an employee of the family business under the arm's lenghth provision of the EI Act, the claimant was held to be self-employed in farming. There is little doubt that the claimant is the guiding person in the farming operation - he is the manager of it and works at it from the beginning of the season until the end - the Board found that there was insufficient evidence to show that his son and daughter were in control of the business. It is unlikely that a business of that size would require a manager and then have two other people in control of it. There is no doubt that these three people are the shareholders in the business but the claimant is not only a shareholder, he is also a manager. In fact, he is what is sometimes referred to as the managing partner.
Decision A-0725.99
Full Text of Decision A-0725.99
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
farming |
self-employed |
|
Summary:
Case similar to that of Caron Bernier (A-0136.96). Claimant worked in insurable employment on a farm of which she owned 20% of the shares. Must declare 15% of her income from the farm's operations while she is unemployed. The Court refused to reconsider the decision in the Caron Bernier case because there were no unusual circumstances justifying reconsideration.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
farming |
calculation of income |
|
Decision 46122
Full Text of Decision 46122
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
farming |
self-employed |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0725.99
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
farming |
calculation of income |
|
Decision 43373
Full Text of Decision 43373
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
farming |
self-employed |
|
Summary:
Claimant admits to owning the farm, on a 50% basis with his son and it is the claimant's 50% partner who decides on how the farm is operated and the claimant benefited from this operation. He states that one cannot be self-employed if one has no knowledge or control. Umpire concluded that one can be self-employed and not have control or knowledge of the business. The claimant being self-employed allowed his son to control the operation of the business. The income received by the claimant from the farm operation is income pursuant to the Act.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
farming |
definition |
|
Decision 43229
Full Text of Decision 43229
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
farming |
self-employed |
|
Summary:
Commission determined that the claimant is self-employed during the farming season. Claimant alleged that he does not work on the farm, but that it is just his wife and children who do so. Umpire found that the scale of the farm operation, the annual income of $42,415.65, the agricultural loan and the lack of proof of a thorough job search constitute sufficient evidence that the claimant chose to work on the farm during the summer.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
proof |
|
|
Decision A-0416.97
Full Text of Decision A-0416.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
farming |
self-employed |
|
Summary:
The FCA found no reviewable error on the part of the Umpire. The facts support the conclusion that the claimant was an investor and not self-employed within the meaning of the Reg. Case distinguishable from Caron Bernier (A-0136.96).**NOTE: For more information on the facts, refer to CUB 37627.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
farming |
allocation of earnings |
|
| earnings |
farming |
definition |
|
Decision 37627
Full Text of Decision 37627
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
farming |
self-employed |
|
Summary:
Claimant owns 50% of the farm. Employed full-time away from the farm and she puts in an insignificant amount of time (12 hrs/year) doing the farm's books. Umpire stated that the claimant, although part-owner in title of a farm, is not self-employed in farmings and does not work on the farm on a regular basis. He did not find that the claimant's involvement in the farm is of such an extent so as to be considered self-employment in farming within the meaning of par. 57(6)(b). Her activities vis-a-vis the farm are that of a concerned investor.**NOTE: The Commission has appealed to the F.C. The claimant is self-employed and however minimal the claimant's participation is in the farming operation, she is subject to an allocation of part of the farming income.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
farming |
allocation of earnings |
|
| earnings |
farming |
definition |
|
Decision A-0136.96
Full Text of Decision A-0136.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
farming |
self-employed |
|
Summary:
Labourer for the farm from 4-07 to 21-10-94, and also engaged in a co-adventure (with 40% of the shares in the business). Advised to declare 15% of her income from the farm. The BOR found that she was not a self-employed worker but simply a worker, and that her income from the farm should not be taken into account. This decision was set aside by the FCA, which ruled that a distinction cannot be made, from the regulatory provision, between the self-employed worker and the worker who operates a business, as the BOR did. The income from the farm that the claimant received after her lay-off, when she continued to render services to the business even though she did not devote more than an hour and a half to it per day, five days a week, have value as earnings and must be deducted from the benefits.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
corporate veil |
|
|
| earnings |
farming |
calculation of income |
|
Decision A-0182.96
Full Text of Decision A-0182.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
farming |
self-employed |
|
Summary:
The claimant, who was the sole proprietor of the woodlands from which the wood that was sold came, alleged that he was unable to cut wood because of a partial disability, and was assisted by his uncle and his son. Also alleged that he had given the wood to his son and did not receive any profit from it. The BOR found that the claimant participated in the operations to the best of his capacities and had to be regarded as a self-employed person, and that the gains he realized had value as earnings and should have been declared. A straight case of assessment of fact, and both the Umpire and the FCA refused to intervene.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
| earnings |
farming |
definition |
|
Decision 30067
Full Text of Decision 30067
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
farming |
self-employed |
|
Summary:
In relying solely on the net income, the Board erred in law. Claimant was engaged in a farming operation which was the type of operation that one would engage in as a principle means of livelihood. Failing to apply the factual situation to the jurisprudence (CUB 5454) is an error in law.
Decision 25491
Full Text of Decision 25491
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
farming |
self-employed |
|
Summary:
While his wife did a great portion of the farming work, claimant owned the farm, derived benefit and profit from the farm and did, on a fairly regular basis, help work at operating the farm. It is not necessary to do all the labour and management duties on one's own to be considered self-employed.
Decision 25285
Full Text of Decision 25285
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
farming |
self-employed |
|
Summary:
The fact that he has not any history of full-time work during the farming season for the past 18 years, excepting his school bus driving job, and the fact that he had no history of full-time or part-time work during July and August, indicate that his farming contribution is not minor in extent.
Decision 24944
Full Text of Decision 24944
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
farming |
self-employed |
|
Summary:
Claimant worked off the farm from 4-91 to 9-93. He works on the farm after his working hours and on weekends. During the time he works off the farm, the farming is done by his brother and hired help. This does not negate the fact that he is fully employed on the farm when he is laid off.
Decision 24920
Full Text of Decision 24920
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
farming |
self-employed |
|
Summary:
School bus driver applying for UI benefits in the summer months and whose farming operation is substantial, not minor in extent. The Board erred in law by not considering the criteria sufficiently in CUB 5454 and applying those six principles.
Decision 24917
Full Text of Decision 24917
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
farming |
self-employed |
|
Summary:
Worked evenings as truck driver 11 weeks ending 10-92. History as bus driver. Each of 6 criteria discussed. The farm operation was infinitely more substantial than his spreading gravel over the township roads and was his principal occupation with extensive operation in cattle, grain and equipment.
Decision 24918
Full Text of Decision 24918
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
farming |
self-employed |
|
Summary:
We have here a gentleman who is a successful electrician and who is a successful farmer. But we are dealing with UI benefits, and the purpose of UI benefits is to help people who have no work and who need the benefits on which to live. That is certainly not the case here.
Decision 21528
Full Text of Decision 21528
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
farming |
self-employed |
|
Summary:
Owns a small ranch of 572 acres, 53 head of cattle and 33 calves. Works some 10 hours a day on the farm and considers farming his main livelihood. He never worked off the farm during the summer months. The Board erred in finding that he was a typical minor farmer.
The Board was wrong in law to apply para. 57(6)(b) because that provision is specifically limited to calculating income for the purpose of 57(2)(a). It is clear that the formula has no application to a determination under ss. 43(2) as to whether farming is minor in extent.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
credibility |
|
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
without regard for material |
|
Decision 21529
Full Text of Decision 21529
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
farming |
self-employed |
|
Summary:
Owns 3,438 acres of which 640 are in pasture and 600 of hay land. Has 48 head of cattle plus 30 calves. He has had no work off the farm for over 20 years. He says that farming was his main livelihood. The Board erred. It gave too great emphasis to the money derived from the farm.
The Board failed to take into account other criteria which are legally relevant. It did not address the uncontested information that claimant had not, for over 20 years, worked away from the farm during the summer. Nor did it consider the scope of the cattle operation.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
not applying jurisprudence |
|
Decision 20970
Full Text of Decision 20970
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
farming |
self-employed |
|
Summary:
The fact that Revenue Canada found that the claimant was a restricted farmer for income tax purposes does not determine the issue of whether or not he was unemployed for the purpose of the UI Act.
Decision 20498
Full Text of Decision 20498
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
farming |
self-employed |
|
Summary:
Her husband farms several quarter-sections of land, of which 5 are jointy owned by him and claimant. The jurisprudence is clear that mere ownership of joint title in farm land does not make one a partner in the operation of a farm. Worked as employee. Reg. 43(3) not applicable.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
corporate veil |
|
|
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
context and titles |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Decision 20047
Full Text of Decision 20047
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
farming |
self-employed |
|
Summary:
Mine worker laid off for the summer. I reject any hard and fast rule that anyone farming over 640 acres must be considered as making farming their main livelihood, as the Board suggests.
Mine worker laid off for 3 months in the summer starting with July. Many thousands of farmers with no more acreage than claimant follow farming as a principal means of livelihood. The size of the farm here and the commitment to it can hardly be regardedas minor in extent.
Decision 18151
Full Text of Decision 18151
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
farming |
self-employed |
|
Summary:
It was appropriate for the Board to look at the claimant's employment pattern over the preceding several years to see whether he had established a pattern of work off the farm during the summer. While I would not necessarily have come to the same conclusion for 1989, no error.
Decision 18129
Full Text of Decision 18129
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
farming |
self-employed |
|
Summary:
Worked 10 weeks ending 3-87. Owns a 960-acre grain farm. Disentitled from 5-4. The Board noted that the last time he had off-farm employment during the summer was 5 years previous. No error of law. It was entitled to look at the pattern of his summer activities.
Decision 18001
Full Text of Decision 18001
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
farming |
self-employed |
|
Summary:
School bus driver who files a claim in June. The Board hands down a favorable decision based on the fact that he has demonstrated availability. The Board has clearly confused 2 very distinct concepts, namely the status of unemployment and that of availability.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
availability for work |
|
|
Decision 13528
Full Text of Decision 13528
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
farming |
self-employed |
|
Summary:
The basis of the decision appears to be that the claimant's farm could possibly become a profitable enterprise sometime in the future. What is possibly going to happen in the future is not a relevant consideration. [p. 4]
Decision 13429
Full Text of Decision 13429
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
farming |
self-employed |
|
Summary:
One can be self-employed in farming, even though he himself does not perform all of the multiplicity of chores and tasks. He did some of the physical work, despite his disability. No evidence that he was not jointly engaged with his wife in the management of the farm. [p. 9-10]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
farming |
definition |
|
| earnings |
business returns |
as income |
|
Decision 13148
Full Text of Decision 13148
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
farming |
self-employed |
|
Summary:
School bus driver unemployed during the summer. "The quantum of income earned [farming work] is of no consequence in determining main or subsidiary occupation. The test is in the quantum of time... The scheme appears to work in odd ways..."
Decision 11393
Full Text of Decision 11393
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
farming |
self-employed |
|
Summary:
Declared disentitled at beginning of active season. Burden on claimant to establish so minor in extent under 43(2) which applies even though case involves farming.
Decision 11385
Full Text of Decision 11385
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
farming |
self-employed |
|
Summary:
[Case turns on its facts]. Off season in Quebec. Large farm recently expanded. In two years borrowed $75,000 and $41,000 from Office du crédit agricole. Reg. 43(3) not applicable.
Decision 11046
Full Text of Decision 11046
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
farming |
self-employed |
|
Summary:
Here, the evidence clearly indicates that the claimant worked 30-40 hours per week on the farm and received $300-$400 monthly for those services. I fail to see how the Board could have concluded he was not engaged in the operation of a business as a farmer.
Decision 10926
Full Text of Decision 10926
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
farming |
self-employed |
|
Summary:
Possible to be owner of a farm without also being operator within meaning of Reg. 43, for example if one has work done by other people. In this instance, board decided not only that insured was co-ower but that he paticipated in it.
