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.