Decision 18082

Case Number Claimant Judge Language Decision date
Decision 18082   MacKay  English 1990-06-05
Decision Appealed Appellant Corresponding Case
Allowed  No N/A  -


Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment  business of a spouse 

Summary:

Worked full-time in wife's store. Reg. 44 applied. CEIC did not dispute his availability nor did it seek to establish that he was self-employed or in a co-adventure. He was working without pay and could not be deemed to have been employed by his wife. No employment relationship.


Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment  work without earnings 

Summary:

While the burden is on claimant to demonstrate he is unemployed, unless the CEIC can establish that he is receiving some form of remuneration for the time and work he has undertaken in his wife's store, or that he is self-employed, it cannot assert thathe was "not unemployed". Worked full-time in wife's store. Reg. 44 applied. He was working without pay and could not be deemed to have been employed by her. The fact that he was occupied full-time in volunteer work may be relevant on the issue of availability but not relevant to his employment status.


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

Summary:

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.


Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
claim procedure  proof required for entitlement 

Summary:

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. The Board must then assess the evidence pro and con on the balance of probabilities and then clearly indicate which argument is the strongest. In a case where it cannot earnestly decide on the balance of probabilities the impasse is to be resolved against the claimant.


Date modified: