Summary of Issue: Self Employed

Decision 73526 Full Text of Decision 73526

The Commission informed the claimant that it could not pay him benefits starting November 2006 because he was engaged in the operation of a business and could not be considered unemployed. A disentitlement and a penalty were imposed. The claimant admitted that he had participated in starting up the company with two other associates, and stated that she used the unemployment benefits to increase the company's working capital". The claimant had an accident at the end of January 2007 followed by a period of illness but during that period, he said he was unwell but could go to the company for short periods of time and do some work. The Commission's appeal is allowed.

Decision 73916 Full Text of Decision 73916

The claimant established a claim for parental benefits effective July 2, 2007. The Commission determined that it could not pay the claimant E.I. benefits as of July 16, 2007 because he was operating his own courier business. The claimant disputes the Commission's decision. He repeated that he was working for a legal entity, in his corporation, from which he was taking no income, so he could not imagine how to report that to the Commission. In this case, during the period of his parental leave, the claimant was able to transition from being a bank employee to being self-employed. The commission imposed a penalty for 27 false representations and issued a notice of a very serious violation. The appeal of the claimant is dismissed

Decision 73246 Full Text of Decision 73246

The Commission found that the claimant was operating a business, that he was not unemployed and had made false and misleading statements. Counsel for the claimant argued that the claimant did not withdraw money from his business and therefore it could not be said that the claimant was not unemployed. Under section 30 of the Regulations, earnings from dividends that have been reinvested in one's small business constitute income. In response to question 38 as to whether he was an owner of or partner in the company where he was employed, he answered "no". This "no" clearly contradicts the information that Quebec's enterprise registrar had on file where, the claimant is designated administrator, president and initial shareholder of the construction company. The claimant’s appeal is dismissed.

Decision 72394 Full Text of Decision 72394

He applied for EI benefit and a claim was established February 2005. He worked for a construction company from July 2004 to February 2005, when his employment ended due to a shortage of work. He reported that he holds less than 40% of the shares in the construction company. An investigation showed that the claimant was a 50% shareholder in two companies. The companies had financial problems and the accountant recommended forming a new entity, a construction company. The Commission imposed a penalty on the claimant for making 8 false statements and issued a notice of violation classified as very serious. The claimant's appeal is dismissed. Similar case72393