Summary of Issue: Business Of A Spouse

Decision A-0038.98 Full Text of Decision A-0038.98

After being laid off because of a shortage of work, claimant continued to work in her spouse's store without pay. BOR and Umpire both upheld Commission's decision that she had not proved that she was unemployed. In a brief decision, Court dismissed the claimant's application for judicial review.

Decision 39417 Full Text of Decision 39417

See summary indexed under FCA A-0038.98

Decision 24591 Full Text of Decision 24591

He put a substantial amount of time and effort into his wife's business. That commitment represents an investment of a significant nature. Thus, it cannot be said that his employment was minor in extent. He must consequently be found to have been engaged in a business on his own or in partnership.

Decision 21966 Full Text of Decision 21966

I need only ask the question "Would she have done this much work week after week, without pay, for a friend or a total stranger?" Obviously she would not have contributed this sort of effort to an enterprise in which she had no financial or family interest. Store managed by husband who has most of the shares. Claimant devotes over 30 hours a week to it. She must be considered as engaged in a co-adventure. The fact that she held only 1% of the shares is not determinative. Family enterprise. She would profitdirectly or indirectly.

Decision 17106A Full Text of Decision 17106A

Argued that the business, a convenience store, was controlled and managed entirely by his wife. However, he had left his job as a baker with Steinberg so as to work for himself and made financial commitments in order to become an owner. A question of facts.

Decision 18083 Full Text of Decision 18083

The grounds for "not unemployed" are found in BERUBE. The 1st is that one is employed by someone else, in which case the CEIC must establish an employer-employee relationship and a remuneration. The 2nd is that he is engaged in a business on his own, asa partner or co-adventure. The Board appears to have assumed that because claimant was engaged in activity which is usually remunerated and that he did so virtually on a full-time basis, that he could not be considered unemployed. In doing so the Board erred in law.

Decision 18082 Full Text of Decision 18082

Worked full-time in wife's store. Reg. 44 applied. CEIC did not dispute his availability nor did it seek to establish that he was self-employed or in a co-adventure. He was working without pay and could not be deemed to have been employed by his wife. No employment relationship.

Decision 16654 Full Text of Decision 16654

There is abundant evidence supporting the conclusion that the claimant was working in his wife's video store on a significant and substantial basis. Whether he received any direct remuneration is not determinative of a decision that he was engaged in a co-adventure.

Decision 15420 Full Text of Decision 15420

Refer to: A-0771.88

Decision A-0771.88 Full Text of Decision A-0771.88

For assistance or voluntary effort to be authentic, the applicant would not be able to derive any economic benefit. The Board made a finding unfavourable to the claimant regarding the number of hours he devoted to his wife's business. No error of law.

Decision 14523 Full Text of Decision 14523

Individual case. Works 35 hours a week in his wife's convenience store. Worked there just as many hours when employed elsewhere. Profitable business.

Decision 13938 Full Text of Decision 13938

Worked without pay at wife's service station, did not share the profits which were reinvested. 44 to 51 hours as normal working week under reg. 44(1). Replacement necessary at substantial cost. More than giving occasional free helping hand.

Decision 12207A Full Text of Decision 12207A

Put substantial time and effort into smoke shop. This represents investment of significant nature, not minor in extent, on own account or partnership. Received no money due to fortunes of business, not due to lack of commitment.

Decision 13357 Full Text of Decision 13357

Fact that he worked for his wife, even without pay, was sufficient to say [that he was not unemployed]. Issue to be examined is unemployment and not earnings.

Decision 10710 Full Text of Decision 10710

Difficult to believe that an unemployed person would work without pay operating his wife's business and at the same time receive benefit, which in a way was a sort of subsidy to the business.