| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
circumstances |
financial success or failure |
|
Summary:
A person who is engaged in an unprofitable business may still be considered employed if he spends a substantial amount of time for the purpose. The financial success or failure of the enterprise is not a conclusive factor.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
week of unemployment |
principal means of livelihood |
|
Summary:
Umpire ruled that when one completes the education requirements for admission to a profession and opens an office there is a presumption that he does so with the intention of engaging in, or following, the private pratice of that profession as a principal means of livelihood. This presumption is rebutable if the claimant spent so little time on his private practice that it could be said that his self-employment was minor in extent.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
week of unemployment |
minor in extent |
|
Summary:
Umpire ruled that when one completes the education requirements for admission to a profession and opens an office there is a presumption that he does so with the intention of engaging in, or following, the private pratice of that profession as a principal means of livelihood. This presumption is rebutable if the claimant spent so little time on his private practice that it could be said that his self-employment was minor in extent. Umpire found that it is a border-line case but he concluded that the facts bring claimant within subsection 43(2).
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
week of unemployment |
professional field |
|
Summary:
Umpire ruled that when one completes the education requirements for admission to a profession and opens an office there is a presumption that he does so with the intention of engaging in, or following, the private pratice of that profession as a principal means of livelihood. This presumption is rebutable if the claimant spent so little time on his private practice that it could be said that his self-employment was minor in extent. Umpire found that it is a border-line case but he concluded that the facts bring claimant within subsection 43(2).
