| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
business of a spouse |
|
|
Summary:
The grounds for "not unemployed" are found in BERUBE. The 1st is that one is employed by someone else, in which case the CEIC must establish an employer-employee relationship and a remuneration. The 2nd is that he is engaged in a business on his own, asa partner or co-adventure.
The Board appears to have assumed that because claimant was engaged in activity which is usually remunerated and that he did so virtually on a full-time basis, that he could not be considered unemployed. In doing so the Board erred in law.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
work without earnings |
|
|
Summary:
No evidence here of remuneration, a necessary element of an employment relationship. That relationship is essential for the application of reg. 44. Both the Board and the Commission failed to distinguish the situations of self-employment from those of employment by another.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
error by board |
|
Summary:
Claimant working full-time in wife's business without pay. Reg. 44 applied. The Commission did not allege self-employment or co-adventure, matters dealt with under reg. 43, as the basis of its decision. Failing this and any proof of remuneration, the Board erred in law.
