| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
minor in extent |
|
|
Summary:
The BOR did not take into account the exception provided for in subsection 43(2) of the Regulations and did not consider the time spent on the business. Evidence showed that the claimant could have taken up full-time employment on several occasions without harming the outfitting operation. Umpire found that the claimant’s work was so minor in extent that he would not have been able to rely on the outfitting operation as a means of livelihood.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
circumstances |
time spent |
|
Summary:
The BOR did not take into account the exception provided for in subsection 43(2) of the Regulations and did not consider the time spent on the business. Evidence showed that the claimant could have taken up full-time employment on several occasions without harming the outfitting operation. Umpire found that the claimant’s work was so minor in extent that he would not have been able to rely on the outfitting operation as a means of livelihood.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
week of unemployment |
principal means of livelihood |
|
Summary:
The BOR did not take into account the exception provided for in subsection 43(2) of the Regulations and did not consider the time spent on the business. Evidence showed that the claimant could have taken up full-time employment on several occasions without harming the outfitting operation. Umpire found that the claimant’s work was so minor in extent that he would not have been able to rely on the outfitting operation as a means of livelihood.
