| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
corporate veil |
|
|
Summary:
It is obvious that arrangements such as these can give rise to concerns about the abuse of the UI system. The problem arises out of the lack of an arm's-length relationship. The Commission should concern itself with enforcement of other requirements: availability and job search.
It is not open to the Commission to treat the work of the claimant prior to 31-10-90 as that of a farm employee, in receipt of insurable employment income from her husband, and then seek to treat her as a self-employed person for terminating her UI. This is an error of law.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
context and titles |
|
Summary:
It is clear from the context that ss. 43(3) has to do with self-employed farmers: the section appears under the heading "Self-Employed Person". Also, ss. 43(1) expressly deals with self-employed persons and ss. 43(2) and (3) deal with specific categories of self-employed.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
farming |
self-employed |
|
Summary:
Her husband farms several quarter-sections of land, of which 5 are jointy owned by him and claimant. The jurisprudence is clear that mere ownership of joint title in farm land does not make one a partner in the operation of a farm. Worked as employee. Reg. 43(3) not applicable.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Summary:
It is not open to the Commission to treat the work of the claimant prior to 31-10-90 as that of a farm employee, in receipt of insurable employment income from her husband, and then seek to treat her as a self-employed person for terminating her UI. This is an error of law.
