Decision A-0999.96
Full Text of Decision A-0999.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
partnership and co-adventure |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant was a 25% shareholder, was the only director and ran his business on a full-time basis. The Commission determined that he was not unemployed because he was operating a business on his own account or in a co-adventure. Counsel for the claimant argued that the decision of the Minister of National Revenue regarding the insurability of the claimant’s employment was binding on the Commission in respect of entitlement to benefit, at the very least as far as the claimant’s unemployed status was concerned, and that it was appropriate to go back to the Venditelli rule. FCA found that this interpretation was based on a misunderstanding of the Act and of its operation. FCA maintained that insurability of an employment and entitlement to benefit are two separate factors that the Commission must assess in relation to two separate periods. Parliament wished to subject the analysis of these two factors to separate schemes, which must not be confused. Consequently, the decision rendered in respect of insurability is binding on the Commission only in regard to that issue, not when the Commission has to determine entitlement to benefit.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
shareholders |
|
|
| basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Decision A-1001.96
Full Text of Decision A-1001.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
partnership and co-adventure |
|
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under A-0999.96, same decision.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
| week of unemployment |
shareholders |
|
|
Decision A-1000.96
Full Text of Decision A-1000.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
partnership and co-adventure |
|
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under A-0999.96, same decision.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
| week of unemployment |
shareholders |
|
|
Decision 35988
Full Text of Decision 35988
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
partnership and co-adventure |
|
|
Summary:
Refer to FCA A-0999.96
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
shareholders |
|
|
| basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Decision 35987
Full Text of Decision 35987
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
partnership and co-adventure |
|
|
Summary:
Refer to FCA A-0999.96
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
shareholders |
|
|
| basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Decision 35986
Full Text of Decision 35986
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
partnership and co-adventure |
|
|
Summary:
Refer to FCA A-0999.96
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
shareholders |
|
|
| basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Decision 13835
Full Text of Decision 13835
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
partnership and co-adventure |
|
|
Summary:
Not only is claimant co-owner of farm, but rents it to a company in which he is co-shareholder [holds one third of shares]. He is both a partner and a co-adventurer.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
farming |
full working week |
|
Decision 69809
Full Text of Decision 69809
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
partnership and co-adventure |
On-season |
|
Summary:
While the claimant is working in the bed and breakfast operation, he is really self-employed and it is to a major extent if he puts in this type of time and effort into the business. The claimant puts his income back into the business and he and his father have contributed even more money to it. The business continues to be successful and it therefore cannot be said that the claimant is unemployed when he is laid off in Alberta and returns home to the bed and breakfast business (in Nova Scotia).
