Summary of Issue: As Income

Decision A0027.13 Full Text of Decision A0027.13

The claimant stated that she was self employed and co owner of a canteen. She also stated that she had worked at the canteen in May and June of 2009 and 2011, and that her partner had worked in July and August. However, the financial statements show that both the claimant and her partner received 50% of the canteen’s income, regardless of the period worked. The Commission therefore adjusted the allocation of the claimant’s earnings to include the months of May, June, July and August. This resulted in an overpayment. The BOR allowed the claimant's appeal, stating that the Commission should have allocated the earnings strictly for the months of May and June. The Umpire upheld the BOR’s decision. The FCA determined that, in light of all the facts noted by the BOR and the applicable standard of review in this case, it was not convinced that the Umpire had committed a reviewable error by refusing to intervene with the BOR’s decision. (Similar case: A0028.13)

Decision 70501 Full Text of Decision 70501

The Commission found that the claimant held 20% of the shares in a company in which her husband owned the other 80%. Claimant contributed to the company by doing administrative work for which she was not paid. The Commission determined that the claimant participated in the operations of the business and the income from the business, that she reported on her income tax return, constituted earnings and allocated those earnings. Referring to the Federal Court of Appeal A.0136.96, the Umpire concluded that a person is not required to have received a regular income from a business they are involved in, in order to be considered as having received earnings within the meaning of the Regulatins. The simple right to such an income is sufficient.

Decision 62911A Full Text of Decision 62911A

Claimant was the sole owner of this business and the fact that he did not actually withdrew monies during the period in question because of losses of previous year which negated any any net earnings for that period is irrelevant. Evidence provided by the claimant established the net income for the periods relevant to the appeal.

Decision 63672 Full Text of Decision 63672

It is not required for the claimant to have received any specific income amount in order for the net income from a business he is involved in be considered earnings within the meaning of the Regulations. The simple right to such an income is sufficient.

Decision 42221 Full Text of Decision 42221

Claimant and his wife bought a seniors' residence. She managed the business and he did odd jobs since he suffered from an almost total disability. The residence was not a corporation established under the Act, but a de facto partnership where each of the partners owned 50%. The income generated was split fifty-fifty and the claimant's share should be considered earnings and allocated according to the Act.

Decision 39359 Full Text of Decision 39359

Allocation of the net profits of the business in accordance with sections 57(6)(c) and 58(6) of the Regulations. BOR reversed this decision, holding that the retained earnings had never been distributed to shareholders. Umpire ruled that s. 57(6)(c) of the Regulations could not be restricted by considerations of non-distribution. The Commission was thus justified in treating the retained earnings as income and in allocating them, since these benefits represented income that the claimant could withdraw from the operating cash flow of the business.

Decision A-0348.96 Full Text of Decision A-0348.96

Claimant a co-adventurer with a 50% interest in an amusement device business. It was determined that the profits were income within the meaning of the Regulations. Citing Caron Bernier (A-136-96), the FCA upheld the decision, recalling the three constants that have emerged from the case law regarding self-employed workers, in respect of the income from their business: 1) the legal status of the business is of no importance; 2) the time devoted to the business changes nothing; and 3) current receipt of income from the operation or business is not required; the simple entitlement to such income suffices. These constants seem to be necessary in order to reflect the desire of Parliament, which wanted to cover all income directly or indirectly related to work, in contrast to income from straight investment.

Decision 33274 Full Text of Decision 33274

Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0348.96

Decision 21358 Full Text of Decision 21358

Meets 43(2). The fact he was operating, even in an incidental and limited fashion, an agricultural business besides his regular employment did not prevent CEIC having to consider 35% of the gross revenue and subsidies he was getting out of his agricultural operation. The Board erred in thinking that the fact the beneficiary was a trucker prevented him being a self-employed worker in the agricultural field pursuant to Reg. 57(6)(b). In the same vein, the fact of holding 70% of the shares of a company does not prevent him being a self-employed worker.

Decision 20350 Full Text of Decision 20350

The Commission indicated that although claimant's self-employment was determined to be minor in extent, therefore not disentitling him to benefits, the net earnings from the company had to be allocated pursuant to the Regulations. Case sent back to Board for a recalculation.

Decision 19779 Full Text of Decision 19779

Self-employment as music teacher continued while unemployed and deemed minor in extent. Income from self-employment as a music teacher is earnings as described in reg. 57 and those earnings were here properly allocated in accord with reg. 58.

Decision 19013 Full Text of Decision 19013

A finding must be made under reg. 43(2) as to the extent of involvement in farming, therefore I refer the matter back to a Board for rehearing on the issue of whether the employment was sufficiently minor in extent so as not to be considered earnings.

Decision 13429 Full Text of Decision 13429

The CEIC argues that moneys earned from the sale of milk fell squarely within reg. 57(6)(b), regardless of whether claimant's self-employment was major or minor in extent [p. 8]. I accept that reg. 57(6)(b) makes no differentiation between major and minor self-employment. [p. 9]

Decision 13116 Full Text of Decision 13116

I fail to see where free-lance writing has peculiarities of a nature where earnings from such literary pursuits should not be considered for UI purposes.

Decision 10936 Full Text of Decision 10936

Herbalife representative who received 5% of sales by distributers he recruited. Not mere investment but business in which he participated. Spent about 15 hours per week on it.

Decision 09674 Full Text of Decision 09674

Board found that extent of claimant's self-employment was "so minor" within meaning of Reg. 43(2) that income not equivalent to earnings. Concept of self-employed worker under Reg. 43 must not be confused with concept under 57(6)(b). No correlation.