Decision 18060

Case Number Claimant Judge Language Decision date
Decision 18060   Reed  English 1990-05-24
Decision Appealed Appellant Corresponding Case
Allowed  No N/A  -


Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment  minor in extent 

Summary:

In considering the time spent by a claimant on a self-employment activity, it is not sufficient to merely add up the total number of hours per day. One must also consider the extent to which there was flexibility as to when that time might be spent.


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.


Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment  rationale 

Summary:

It is often said that the UI scheme is not meant to operate as a system for subsidizing the establishment of personnel businesses. There is no doubt that this is true. These observations do not apply where one starts up a business as a stop-gap measure.


Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
penalties  business 

Summary:

It is clear that he did not "knowingly" do so. His explanation is entirely credible. For him, it was not work because he was not employed; hours spent were few and flexible and remuneration minimal. He states, however, it was not correct to say "no" to "will you receive money".


Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees  natural justice  free of bias 

Summary:

His oral evidence fully substantiates the allegations which appear in written form on his notice of appeal. The Board clearly had made up its mind ahead of time. It had pre-judged the claimant's case and, thus, he did not get a fair hearing.


Date modified: