Summary of Issue: Circumstances

Decision 39886 Full Text of Decision 39886

BOR did not question the time spent by claimant in the operation of the business. They only took into account the fact that she owned 50% of the business and expected long-term profit from it. Umpire concluded that these factors alone did not support a finding that her involvement in the business was not so minor in extent.

Decision 40174 Full Text of Decision 40174

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.

Decision 39594 Full Text of Decision 39594

The fact the business does not enable a person to become self-supporting in its initial stages does not negate the obligation to declare his interest in such a business and, as a result, to become disentitled to the receipt of insurance benefits.

Decision 37634 Full Text of Decision 37634

The sucess or failure of the business is not a conclusive factor. If the amount of time one spends in the business, even without profit, indicates that one might normally follow it as a principal means of livelihood, then it is not minor in extent.

Decision 36657 Full Text of Decision 36657

Claimant stated that for the 5 month period the net profits do not indicate a successful business. Held that profitability of a business is only one factor to be taken into consideration in determining whether the exception of Reg. 43(2) may be applied. The BOR analyzed the "minor in extent" issue on the basis of the criteria set out in Cub 5454, finding the exception did not apply to him.

Decision 39592A Full Text of Decision 39592A

Clamaint's investment was moderately substantial he did not make the investment for the purpose of crating employment for himself. His role was that of an investor. The continuity of the business was not dependent upon the claimant, nor was it the type of business that would normally occupy the claimant. When the factors set in Schwenk are viewed in their proper perspective the claimant's activity in the business was not as an employer and the work he performed was of such a minor extent that a person would not normally rely on that employment as a principal means of livelihood.

Decision A-0104.00 Full Text of Decision A-0104.00

The claimant argued that the Board of Referees and the Umpire had failed to consider whether the claimant could and should benefit from the exception provided under s. 43(2) of the EIR. The Court ruled that although the Board of Referees did not expressly use the language employed in s. 43(2), it seemed clear, from a reading of the record, that the Board considered the exception. The Board of Referees correctly assessed the facts, the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses and, there being no palpable and obvious errors, the Umpire carefully refrained from becoming involved in these matters.

Decision 44548A Full Text of Decision 44548A

See summary indexed under FCA A-0104.00

Decision 39592A Full Text of Decision 39592A

According to criteria set in sSchwenk, claimant's overall participation in the business was minor in extent. The time he spent in the business must be viewed by taking into account the circumstances under which claimant attended the business premises. He was unemployed waiting for a recall to work. He was not there because he had to be there.

Decision 40976 Full Text of Decision 40976

Claimant spent considerable time and energy promoting his business but earned little or no income. BOR found that the claimant had not shown that the time he spent on his business was so limited that he could not normally count on this employment as his primary means of livelihood. Umpire upheld BOR’s decision and cited Schwenk (CUB5454) and Jouan (A-0366.96).

Decision A-0662.97 Full Text of Decision A-0662.97

Case identical to the Michel Turcotte case. See summary indexed under A-0664.97.

Decision A-0664.97 Full Text of Decision A-0664.97

The claimant, a co-adventurer in a business, reported spending 35-40 hours on the business when he was working at the jobsites but left out the time he spent trying to acquire contracts since he did not draw a salary for this. The Umpire found that the BOR had not given sufficient weight to the "time spent" factor and allowed the Commission’s appeal. The FCA refused to intervene and dismissed the claimant’s request for judicial review.

Decision 40062 Full Text of Decision 40062

Claimant concedes that he worked 40 hrs/week in his business. Pursuant to Jouan A-0366.94, claimant is not entitled to UI benefits. Time spent is substantial, that ends the matter right away and a business is not "minor in extent".

Decision 39886 Full Text of Decision 39886

BOR did not question the time spent by claimant in the operation of the business. They only took into account the fact that she owned 50% of the business and expected long-term profit from it. Umpire concluded that these factors alone did not support a finding that her involvement was not so minor in extent.

Decision 38432 Full Text of Decision 38432

Umpire stated that the Jouan case is not the "be all and end all" and the decision of Veilleux and Magee heard by different panels of the FCA indicate that the criteria laid down by Dubé J. in Schwenk are still to be considered when evidence conclusive of the time element is missing. It is therefore only when the time element is very consequential that the other facts need not be considered.

Decision 38283 Full Text of Decision 38283

Although the Jouan decision related to a case of employment for 50 hours a week, the fact remains that 35 to 40 hours a week is a sizable number of hours to devote to a business. Consequently, it could not be said that the involvement in the business was so minor in extent that it could not be followed as a principal means of livelihood.

Decision 37174 Full Text of Decision 37174

The BOR did not take into account the exception provided for in subsection 43(2) of the Regulations and did not consider the time spent on the business. Evidence showed that the claimant could have taken up full-time employment on several occasions without harming the outfitting operation. Umpire found that the claimant’s work was so minor in extent that he would not have been able to rely on the outfitting operation as a means of livelihood.