| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
minor in extent |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant held 50% of the shares of the company, with her ex-husband. She devoted 30 hours per week on average to this business, but claimed that she was at the same time working 50 hours a week for an employer. In addition, she invested the amount of $15,000 for the purchase of equipment. The finding of the BOR was not perverse or capricious, and the Umpire refused to intervene. Referring to its decisions in Jouan (A-366-94) and Taschuk (A-616-95), the FCA dismissed the application for judicial review.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
weeks of unemployment |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant held 50% of the shares of the company, with her ex-husband. She devoted 30 hours per week on average to this business, but claimed that she was at the same time working 50 hours a week for an employer. In addition, she invested the amount of $15,000 for the purchase of equipment. The finding of the BOR was not perverse or capricious, and the Umpire refused to intervene. Referring to its decisions in Jouan (A-366-94) and Taschuk (A-616-95), the FCA dismissed the application for judicial review.
