| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
partnership and co-adventure |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant was a 25% shareholder, was the only director and ran his business on a full-time basis. The Commission determined that he was not unemployed because he was operating a business on his own account or in a co-adventure. Counsel for the claimant argued that the decision of the Minister of National Revenue regarding the insurability of the claimant’s employment was binding on the Commission in respect of entitlement to benefit, at the very least as far as the claimant’s unemployed status was concerned, and that it was appropriate to go back to the Venditelli rule. FCA found that this interpretation was based on a misunderstanding of the Act and of its operation. FCA maintained that insurability of an employment and entitlement to benefit are two separate factors that the Commission must assess in relation to two separate periods. Parliament wished to subject the analysis of these two factors to separate schemes, which must not be confused. Consequently, the decision rendered in respect of insurability is binding on the Commission only in regard to that issue, not when the Commission has to determine entitlement to benefit.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
shareholders |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant was a 25% shareholder, was the only director and ran his business on a full-time basis. The Commission determined that he was not unemployed because he was operating a business on his own account or in a co-adventure. Counsel for the claimant argued that the decision of the Minister of National Revenue regarding the insurability of the claimant’s employment was binding on the Commission in respect of entitlement to benefit, at the very least as far as the claimant’s unemployed status was concerned, and that it was appropriate to go back to the Venditelli rule. FCA found that this interpretation was based on a misunderstanding of the Act and of its operation. FCA maintained that insurability of an employment and entitlement to benefit are two separate factors that the Commission must assess in relation to two separate periods. Parliament wished to subject the analysis of these two factors to separate schemes, which must not be confused. Consequently, the decision rendered in respect of insurability is binding on the Commission only in regard to that issue, not when the Commission has to determine entitlement to benefit.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
insurability |
jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
The claimant was a 25% shareholder, was the only director and ran his business on a full-time basis. The Commission determined that he was not unemployed because he was operating a business on his own account or in a co-adventure. Counsel for the claimant argued that the decision of the Minister of National Revenue regarding the insurability of the claimant’s employment was binding on the Commission in respect of entitlement to benefit, at the very least as far as the claimant’s unemployed status was concerned, and that it was appropriate to go back to the Venditelli rule. FCA found that this interpretation was based on a misunderstanding of the Act and of its operation. FCA maintained that insurability of an employment and entitlement to benefit are two separate factors that the Commission must assess in relation to two separate periods. Parliament wished to subject the analysis of these two factors to separate schemes, which must not be confused. Consequently, the decision rendered in respect of insurability is binding on the Commission only in regard to that issue, not when the Commission has to determine entitlement to benefit.
