Summary of Issue: Applicability

Decision A-0247.96 Full Text of Decision A-0247.96

Claimant claimed that because he was employed in insurable employment as the operator of a business, the Commission could not disqualify him from receiving benefits under Reg. 43(1). FCA maintained that this argument was unacceptable because, although the insurability of the employment is an essential condition for entitlement, it is not a guarantee. Furthermore, it added that if the decision in Venditelli (A-800.81) can be interpreted in this way, it should not be used as a precedent.

Decision 32697 Full Text of Decision 32697

Refer to FCA A-0247.96

Decision 27215 Full Text of Decision 27215

The Board confused the concept of insurability and entitlement. It relied on para. 3(2)(d) to say that the claimant, in holding only 40% of the shares in the company, was not self-employed within the meaning of para. 43(1)(a) of the Regulations. Error of law.

Decision 25404 Full Text of Decision 25404

According to the claimant, Revenue Canada requires that income from this operation be considered rental income and therefore cannot be self-employment. The Board is not expected to classify a business as Revenue Canada would. It must follow the Act and the Regulations.

Decision 24905 Full Text of Decision 24905

The Board erred in law. The Commission's decision was based on para. 43(1)(b) applying to the independent worker (not in an employer/employee relationship). The Board based its decision on ss. 44(1) dealing with a person who is an "employee" within the framework of an employer-employee relationship.

Decision 21027 Full Text of Decision 21027

Realtor; decision based on Reg. 43(1)(a); insured argues 43(1)(b) applies. Seems clear to me that a) and b) may apply alternately or even simultaneously. Self-employed worker may hold down job under sub b).

Decision 15652 Full Text of Decision 15652

Where the issue turns on self-employment, it becomes necessary firstly to determine whether the person is in fact self-employed. If so, the next question is whether the employment is so minor in extent.

Decision 12257 Full Text of Decision 12257

The claimant is correct when he argues he cannot be disentitled under ss.21(1) and reg. 44(1). It should have been under s.19 as he was not unemployed, rather than he was disentitled.