Summary of Issue: Proof

Decision A-0515.00 Full Text of Decision A-0515.00

Claimant reported long working hours, investment of a large some of money into his venture to get it going and there was no evidence that he was actively seeking employment. By the records, the business was successful and lucrative. He expressed the hope of expanding the entreprise in staff and year round full-time employment. The BOR and the Umpire found that the claimant was not unemployed. Claimant's request for judicial review by the FCA summarily dismissed.

Decision 47481 Full Text of Decision 47481

See summary indexed under FCA A-0515.00

Decision 43229 Full Text of Decision 43229

Commission determined that the claimant is self-employed during the farming season. Claimant alleged that he does not work on the farm, but that it is just his wife and children who do so. Umpire found that the scale of the farm operation, the annual income of $42,415.65, the agricultural loan and the lack of proof of a thorough job search constitute sufficient evidence that the claimant chose to work on the farm during the summer.

Decision A-0250.97 Full Text of Decision A-0250.97

Claimant found not unemployed based on the evidence on file. However, based on the evidence submitted at the hearing, the BOR allowed the claimant's appeal. The Commission appealed to the Umpire alleging that the BOR had solely based its decision on the evidence produced at the hearing. The Umpire refused however to interfere stating that there was credible evidence and that the Board's decision was well-founded. The FCA dismissed the Commission's appeal being not convinced of the inadequacies of the presentation by the Commission or of the paucity of findings of fact by the BOR or by the Umpire.

Decision 24159 Full Text of Decision 24159

Once the CEIC establishes a prima facie case of self-employment, the onus shifts to claimant to show that the employment is minor in extent. He could have introduced evidence to this end. He did not do so. I would draw an adverse inference from his failure to do so and his failure to keep records.

Decision 21455 Full Text of Decision 21455

In saying CEIC did not prove the services rendered were rendered full-time and that the insured was not rendering them for free, the Board clearly contravened para. 40(1) which puts this burden on the beneficiary. That was an error in law.

Decision 18082 Full Text of Decision 18082

As per FALARDEAU, ss.40(1) imposes on claimant the burden of establishing his eligibility in all cases. This cannot mean that the CEIC may baldly assert that he is self-employed and put him to the strict proof that he is not. It must build a prima faciacase for him to refute.

Decision A-0078.89 Full Text of Decision A-0078.89

The documentary evidence shows that he operated a business on a continuing basis. He subsequently says that he never intended to do this. Faced with these contradictions, the only possible conclusion was to hold that he did not prove that he was unemployed.

Decision 16177 Full Text of Decision 16177

Refer to: A-0078.89

Decision 15420 Full Text of Decision 15420

Refer to: A-0771.88

Decision A-0771.88 Full Text of Decision A-0771.88

We do not know whether he used the time available to him after his voluntary departure in such a way as to make do with the situation that could be economically advantageous to him or whether he was merely filling up his free time. Question of fact; onus on him under s. 40.

Decision 12958 Full Text of Decision 12958

Under s. 54, burden rests on insured to prove that she met requirements and she had burden of establishing that Reg. 43(2) applied in her favour.

Decision A-0396.85 Full Text of Decision A-0396.85

The Board's decision [to not give benefit of doubt to claimant] is unassailable. Ss. 54(1) imposes on him the burden of proof in all cases, on a balance of probabilities. If, after hearing evidence, the Board only had a doubt as to his eligibility, burden clearly not discharged.