Decision A0280.12
Full Text of Decision A0280.12
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
principal means of livelihood |
|
|
Summary:
A registered business report from the CRA indicated that an employer number had been requested by the company Distribution JMF 2010 Inc., which was operated by the Applicant and her husband. This new information prompted an investigation that revealed the Applicant had made false declarations and was not eligible for benefits under the Act. The Commission imposed a penalty on the Applicant under section 38 of the EI Act and further issued a notice of violation. The FCA issued specific instructions that the BOR should determine if the claimant’s participation in her company during her benefit period was such that it could not constitute her principal means of livelihood under subs. 30(2) and (3) of the EIR, to determine if the claimant knowingly made false or misleading representations and to follow the FCA’s determination in Gill and consider that a notice of violation is not automatic.
Decision A0067.07
Full Text of Decision A0067.07
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
principal means of livelihood |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant's principal argument is that the BOR did not consider the six criteria of subsection 30(3) of the EI Regulations and that the Umpire failed to intervene. The Court was of the view that the Board did not have to consider these criteria since the claimant was engaged in a business to the same extent as his associate who devoted all his time to the business.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Decision A-0361.98
Full Text of Decision A-0361.98
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
principal means of livelihood |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant worked 10 hours/week as a real estate agent while receiving benefits. He was found not to be unemployed and this decision was upheld by the BOR and the Umpire. According to the FCA, BOR erred in accepting the claimant's testimony that he did only 10 hours of unpaid work and deciding that he could count on this work as a principal means of livelihood. Requirements of subsection 43(2) met and claimant's appeal allowed.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
minor in extent |
|
|
| week of unemployment |
real estate salespersons |
|
|
Decision 42381
Full Text of Decision 42381
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
principal means of livelihood |
|
|
Summary:
Although clmt contends his involvement in business was that of a part-time employee only, he did not engage in any in depth job search during that time, this factor being relevant to whether he was treating the business activity as his principle means of livelihood.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
preparatory activities in commencing business |
|
|
| week of unemployment |
minor in extent |
|
|
Decision 39592A
Full Text of Decision 39592A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
principal means of livelihood |
|
|
Summary:
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.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
circumstances |
nature and amount |
|
| week of unemployment |
minor in extent |
|
|
| week of unemployment |
circumstances |
time spent |
|
Decision A-0662.97
Full Text of Decision A-0662.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
principal means of livelihood |
|
|
Summary:
Case identical to the Michel Turcotte case. See summary indexed under A-0664.97.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
minor in extent |
|
|
| week of unemployment |
circumstances |
time spent |
|
Decision A-0664.97
Full Text of Decision A-0664.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
principal means of livelihood |
|
|
Summary:
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.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
minor in extent |
|
|
| week of unemployment |
circumstances |
time spent |
|
Decision A-0245.97
Full Text of Decision A-0245.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
principal means of livelihood |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant worked in his wife's restaurant from 6:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m., seven days a week. He didn't receive any remuneration for that work. FCA found that the Umpire didn't give full effect to the Jouan decison when he concluded that because claimant worked gratuitously to assist his spouse, his employment was minor in extent. Court concluded that when applying the Jouan analysis to this case the evidence shows that claimant's involvement in the business was not so minor in extent that one would not normally follow it as a principal means of livelihood.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
minor in extent |
|
|
| week of unemployment |
work without earnings |
|
|
Decision 40174
Full Text of Decision 40174
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
principal means of livelihood |
|
|
Summary:
Umpire ruled that when one completes the education requirements for admission to a profession and opens an office there is a presumption that he does so with the intention of engaging in, or following, the private pratice of that profession as a principal means of livelihood. This presumption is rebutable if the claimant spent so little time on his private practice that it could be said that his self-employment was minor in extent.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
circumstances |
financial success or failure |
|
| week of unemployment |
minor in extent |
|
|
| week of unemployment |
professional field |
|
|
Decision A-0113.97
Full Text of Decision A-0113.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
principal means of livelihood |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant worked many hours each week in order to build up his business, while he was claiming benefits. Umpire found that the claimant could not argue that he was not relying on his business as a principal means of livelihood, nor that he should not be deemed to have always worked full working weeks. FCA upheld the Umpire’s decision.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
full working week |
|
|
| week of unemployment |
business |
|
|
Decision A-1058.96
Full Text of Decision A-1058.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
principal means of livelihood |
|
|
Summary:
For summary, refer to A-1059.96
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
full working week |
|
|
Decision A-1059.96
Full Text of Decision A-1059.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
principal means of livelihood |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant owned 33 1/3% of the shares in a horticultural greenhouse. Business received a farm loan of $120,000 and a job creation subsidy of $85,000. The shareholders had to prove that they could make this business their principal means of livelihood in order to obtain this funding. The BOR decided that the claimant was operating a business on his own account, that he controlled his own hours of work and that he spent enough time on his business. Decision upheld by the Umpire and confirmed by the FCA, except for a short period conceded by the Commission.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
full working week |
|
|
Decision 39905
Full Text of Decision 39905
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
principal means of livelihood |
|
|
Summary:
It cannot be said that a clmt who controls his own hours of work and admits overseeing the operations of six businesses that "the employment is so minor in extent that a person would not normally follow it as a principal means of livelihood".
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
minor in extent |
|
|
Decision 39594
Full Text of Decision 39594
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
principal means of livelihood |
|
|
Summary:
While it is commendable for a person to endeavour to improve his lot in life by engaging in a business on his own, he is not entitled to support that business by resorting to the public purse in the form of UI while a business grows to become income producing and sufficiently so to enable the self-employed person to eventually rely on the business itself.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
incomes |
|
|
| week of unemployment |
rationale |
|
|
| week of unemployment |
circumstances |
financial success or failure |
|
Decision 38283
Full Text of Decision 38283
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
principal means of livelihood |
|
|
Summary:
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.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
minor in extent |
|
|
| week of unemployment |
circumstances |
time spent |
|
Decision 37634
Full Text of Decision 37634
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
principal means of livelihood |
|
|
Summary:
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.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
circumstances |
financial success or failure |
|
Decision 37174
Full Text of Decision 37174
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
principal means of livelihood |
|
|
Summary:
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.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
minor in extent |
|
|
| week of unemployment |
circumstances |
time spent |
|
Decision 36921
Full Text of Decision 36921
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
principal means of livelihood |
|
|
Summary:
A person, albeit a co-adventurer, who works gratuitously in an effort to assist a spouse, another family member, or a friend, to establish or maintain a business venture can hardly be said to be employed to an extent that he or she would normally follow that employment as a principal means of livelihood.**N.B. Commission appealed this case to the FCA since the Umpire erred in fact and in law. Evidence shows that claimant devoted 49 hrs a week to the business in which he was co-adventurer, he therefore cannot benefit from s. 43(2) of the Reg. on the sole basis that he was working gratuitously for his wife.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
co-adventure |
|
|
| week of unemployment |
work without earnings |
|
|
Decision 18060
Full Text of Decision 18060
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
principal means of livelihood |
|
|
Summary:
Every factor enumerated in CUB 5454 examined in relation to the particular circumstances of the case.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
minor in extent |
|
|
| week of unemployment |
rationale |
|
|
| penalties |
business |
|
|
| board of referees |
natural justice |
free of bias |
|
Decision 16446
Full Text of Decision 16446
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
principal means of livelihood |
|
|
Summary:
The question in issue is not whether this particular endeavour was profitable but whether the enterprise in general was one which would not normally provide an income. The operation of a gas station from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. is certainly something that normally would be a livelihood.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
minor in extent |
|
|
Decision 13744
Full Text of Decision 13744
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
principal means of livelihood |
|
|
Summary:
The question becomes whether persons who carry out a similar activity and make ordinary efforts at it would normally follow it as principal means of livelihood; the question is not whether the activity does or does not constitute this clt's principal means of livelihood.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
availability for work |
|
|
Decision 12380
Full Text of Decision 12380
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
principal means of livelihood |
|
|
Summary:
Word "normally" not there by accident. [If income was low] it was because of agreement [between the parties]. Meagre income has no influence on [what is normally principal means of livelihood].
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
benevolent work |
|
|
| penalties |
earnings |
|
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of facts |
|
Decision 11704
Full Text of Decision 11704
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
principal means of livelihood |
|
|
Summary:
Frequently held that claimant must do more than simply show that his own involvement was not very time-consuming. He must show that the employment was of such a minor nature that people would not normally follow it as a principal means of livelihood.
Decision 11563
Full Text of Decision 11563
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
principal means of livelihood |
|
|
Summary:
The question is not whether this claimant followed it as a principal means of livelihood but rather, as a general rule, whether a person would do so. Obviously, real estate sales is in that category.
Decision 11185
Full Text of Decision 11185
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
principal means of livelihood |
|
|
Summary:
The test to apply under 43(2) is an objective one: is the employment itself normally pursued as a principal means of livelihood? Individuals who devote as much time [as 40 hours a week] to the sale of cars normally follow that employment as livelihood.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
control of working hours |
|
|
| week of unemployment |
full working week |
|
|
| week of unemployment |
commission salespersons |
|
|
Decision 11174
Full Text of Decision 11174
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
principal means of livelihood |
|
|
Summary:
The Board found that the intent of investment would eventually be as a principal means of livelihood. The proviso does not require that a person would "never" normally follow it... [but refers to the present time]. [p. 8-9]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
minor in extent |
|
|
| week of unemployment |
job search |
|
|
