| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
co-adventure |
|
|
Summary:
A person, albeit a co-adventurer, who works gratuitously in an effort to assist a spouse, another family member, or a friend, to establish or maintain a business venture can hardly be said to be employed to an extent that he or she would normally follow that employment as a principal means of livelihood.**Claimant's wife was sole proprietor. Claimant was not self-employed, operating a business or a partner. He had advanced funds for the security deposit and had personally guaranteed his wife's obligations to her landlord. In the broad sense he was a co-adventurer.**N.B. Commission appealed this case to the FCA since the Umpire erred in fact and in law. Evidence shows that claimant devoted 49 hrs a week to the business in which he was co-adventurer, he therefore cannot benefit from ss. 43(2) of the Reg. on the sole basis that he was working gratuitously for his wife.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
principal means of livelihood |
|
|
Summary:
A person, albeit a co-adventurer, who works gratuitously in an effort to assist a spouse, another family member, or a friend, to establish or maintain a business venture can hardly be said to be employed to an extent that he or she would normally follow that employment as a principal means of livelihood.**N.B. Commission appealed this case to the FCA since the Umpire erred in fact and in law. Evidence shows that claimant devoted 49 hrs a week to the business in which he was co-adventurer, he therefore cannot benefit from s. 43(2) of the Reg. on the sole basis that he was working gratuitously for his wife.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
work without earnings |
|
|
Summary:
A person, albeit a co-adventurer, who works gratuitously in an effort to assist a spouse, another family member, or a friend, to establish or maintain a business venture can hardly be said to be employed to an extent that he or she would normally follow that employment as a principal means of livelihood.**N.B. Commission appealed this case to the FCA since the Umpire erred in fact and in law. Evidence shows that claimant devoted 49 hrs a week to the business in which he was co-adventurer, he therefore cannot benefit from s. 43(2) of the Reg. on the sole basis that he was working gratuitously for his wife.
