| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
corporate veil |
|
|
Summary:
Sometimes difficult to reconcile regs. 14(a) and 43. Here the employment was insurable under 14(a) but claimant was in fact controlling the company even though he owned only 39% of the shares. Appears to come under reg. 43(1)(b) rather than 43(1)(a).
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
incomes |
|
|
Summary:
Employment may well have been so minor in extent as to come under 43(2) in Jan. were it not for substantial sums he drew from company. It is not only the time devoted to the work which counts but one must also look at the remuneration received.
