Summary of Issue: Principal Means Of Livelihood

Decision 21161 Full Text of Decision 21161

The Board did not determine if the claimant's self-employed activities were so minor in extent as to be such that they would not normally be followed as a principal means of livelihood. To fail to address the issue of minor in extent is an error in law.

Decision 18068 Full Text of Decision 18068

The main reason the Board's decision cannot stand is that it committed an error of law in not considering whether, despite the fact that the claimant was engaged in a co-adventure, that activity was so minor in extent as to fall under reg. 43(2).

Decision 16650 Full Text of Decision 16650

It has been held in a number of cases that it is an error in law not to consider whether an activity is so minor in extent under reg. 43(2). It is the Board's responsibility to consider 43(2). Six factors are set out in CUB 5454 to be considered.

Decision 15923 Full Text of Decision 15923

The Board erred in part when it found that claimant was not available. The issue related to claimant's employment under ss.21(1) and reg. 43(1)(b), not whether he was available. The Board also erred in law by failing to consider whether the employment was minor in extent.

Decision 15652 Full Text of Decision 15652

The Board did not consider whether claimant's activities were minor in extent. This failure constituted an error of law.

Decision 15332 Full Text of Decision 15332

This Board erred in law in failing to consider whether the employment was so minor in extent that a person would not normally follow it as a principal means of livelihood.

Decision A-0715.87 Full Text of Decision A-0715.87

The Board totally ignored ss. 43(2) as to whether claimant's employment was minor in extent. Since this was an error in law, the Umpire allowed the appeal. Judgment quashed by FC because Umpire failed to make a finding under ss. 43(2).

Decision 14001 Full Text of Decision 14001

Refer to: A-0715.87

Decision 12922A Full Text of Decision 12922A

The Board committed an error in law by failing to address itself to the question of the possible application of reg. 43(2). Case referred back to the Board.

Decision 13687 Full Text of Decision 13687

The Board's decision contains an error of law. No determination is made as to whether the claimant's self-employment activities were minor in extent.

Decision 13103 Full Text of Decision 13103

If board decides that claimant falls under Reg. 43(1), it has obligation to ask whether insured's employment in business minor in extent within meaning of 43(2); otherwise, error of law.

Decision 12905 Full Text of Decision 12905

Board did not consider Reg. 43(2). This omission is undeniably an error of law. Nonetheless, apepars that insured devoted too much time and energy not to want to make it his principal means of livelihood.

Decision 12061A Full Text of Decision 12061A

The simple affirmation that the claimant is self-employed cannot justify the Board's decision to disentitle without giving consideration to reg. 43(2). Error in law.

Decision 12759 Full Text of Decision 12759

In omitting to address itself to the possible application of reg. 43(2), the Board undeniably committed an error in law.

Decision 11918 Full Text of Decision 11918

In failing to pay any regard to the saving provisions of reg. 43(2), the Board committed a serious error in law.

Decision 11266 Full Text of Decision 11266

It was an error of law by the Board to merely conclude that because claimant had the intention of making his business his main means of livelihood, he was unavailable, without giving consideration to whether this employment was so minor in extent.

Decision 10601 Full Text of Decision 10601

The Board addressed its mind only to whether claimant engaged in own business; it did not consider whether activities minor in extent. It therefore failed to exercise its jurisdiction and committed an error of law. [p. 8]