| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
work without earnings |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant worked in his wife's business. She had no experience in the field. The evidence on the record amply shows that he wished to benefit from the success of the business and hoped to derive a benefit or profit from his unpaid work. According to BÉRUBÉ, EIC was justified in proceeding under ss. 44(1).
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
time limitation |
|
Summary:
The counsel, citing COURTY, argued that EIC had to prove fraud on the claimant's part in order to avail itself of the extension of time provided for in ss. 43(6). This jurisprudence does not apply to the case at bar. 43(6) does not require to establish that the false statement was made knowingly.
