| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
farming |
self-employed |
|
Summary:
Despite the ruling of the Canada Revenue Agency that the claimant was an employee of the family business under the arm's lenghth provision of the EI Act, the claimant was held to be self-employed in farming. There is little doubt that the claimant is the guiding person in the farming operation - he is the manager of it and works at it from the beginning of the season until the end - the Board found that there was insufficient evidence to show that his son and daughter were in control of the business. It is unlikely that a business of that size would require a manager and then have two other people in control of it. There is no doubt that these three people are the shareholders in the business but the claimant is not only a shareholder, he is also a manager. In fact, he is what is sometimes referred to as the managing partner.
