| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
contract of services |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant claimed that because he was employed in insurable employment as the operator of a business, the Commission could not disqualify him from receiving benefits under Reg. 43(1). FCA maintained that this argument was unacceptable because, although the insurability of the employment is an essential condition for entitlement, it is not a guarantee. Furthermore, it added that if the decision in Venditelli (A-800.81) can be interpreted in this way, it should not be used as a precedent.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
applicability |
|
Summary:
Claimant claimed that because he was employed in insurable employment as the operator of a business, the Commission could not disqualify him from receiving benefits under Reg. 43(1). FCA maintained that this argument was unacceptable because, although the insurability of the employment is an essential condition for entitlement, it is not a guarantee. Furthermore, it added that if the decision in Venditelli (A-800.81) can be interpreted in this way, it should not be used as a precedent.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
week of unemployment |
applicability |
|
Summary:
Claimant claimed that because he was employed in insurable employment as the operator of a business, the Commission could not disqualify him from receiving benefits under Reg. 43(1). FCA maintained that this argument was unacceptable because, although the insurability of the employment is an essential condition for entitlement, it is not a guarantee. Furthermore, it added that if the decision in Venditelli (A-800.81) can be interpreted in this way, it should not be used as a precedent.
