Summary of Issue


Decision 25973A Full Text of Decision 25973A

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment farming full working week
Summary:

Refer to: A-0281.95

other summary
Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees right of being represented
proof errors in law burden of proof
board of referees errors in law burden of proof
proof errors in law rules of evidence
board of referees right to be heard language to be used

Decision A-0281.95 Full Text of Decision A-0281.95

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment farming full working week
Summary:

Alleged that contrary to Reg.42(2), no evidence submitted that claimant worked 5 days/week. Held that BOR was entitled to accept evidence as being probative of the fact that, by doing 60-70 hours each week, she had worked at least a 5-day week without the specific statement being made. Upheld by FCA

other summary
Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees right of being represented
proof errors in law burden of proof
board of referees errors in law burden of proof
proof errors in law rules of evidence
board of referees right to be heard language to be used

Decision 20266 Full Text of Decision 20266

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment farming full working week
Summary:

Left full-time employment in order to obtain an agricultural loan of $40,000 stating that farming was his main occupation. Subsequently employed as school bus driver and makes a claim for UI benefits at the end of June.

other summary
Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
earnings farming definition

Decision 15700 Full Text of Decision 15700

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment farming full working week
Summary:

Regulation 43(3) stipulating that a self-employed worker employed in agriculture is unemployed from 1-10 to 31-3 does not apply to the insured who was employed by a farmer, since she cannot be considered a self-employed worker.

other summary
Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
interruption of earnings conditions required non-monetary income
earnings income in kind

Decision 13942 Full Text of Decision 13942

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment farming full working week
Summary:

Function of Reg. 42(2) is to define working week of an agricultural worker, not unit of measurement for a self-employed worker, which is the role of Reg. 43.


Decision 13835 Full Text of Decision 13835

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment farming full working week
Summary:

Reg. 43(2) does not apply to a farm worker. Only 43(3) may exempt him from 43(1) and that applies only to the off season.

other summary
Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment partnership and co-adventure

Decision 12341 Full Text of Decision 12341

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment farming full working week
Summary:

Self-employed farmer deemed to be working for purposes of Reg. 42(2).


Decision 11634 Full Text of Decision 11634

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment farming full working week
Summary:

Reg. 43(3) applies for benefit of claimant who is employed in farming and who cannot benefit from more general exception in 43(2).


Decision 68684 Full Text of Decision 68684

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment farming self-employed
Summary:

The claimant's activities from April to September are a full time employment. The claimant is working in the spring getting his farm ready for planting and also keeps some livestock. Although this is a very small operation, it appears that he spends a considerable amount of time each week at that activity. After September, the claimant appears to be unemployed but this is his own business and it is up to him to determine when he closes down for the winter. The claimant is not unlike any other farmer in that he works during the spring, summer and fall and then during the winter there is not that much for the claimant to do other than to get things ready for the next season. Further, the evidence in this case does not show that the claimant has been working regularly at other activities and does not show an extensive job search during this period when he was involved in his farm activities. Surely a person who is involved 72 hours per week in farming activity from April to September would not be available to take on other employment. That shows that the claimant was involved in this operation in more than a minor extent.


Decision 68677 Full Text of Decision 68677

summary
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.


Decision A-0725.99 Full Text of Decision A-0725.99

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment farming self-employed
Summary:

Case similar to that of Caron Bernier (A-0136.96). Claimant worked in insurable employment on a farm of which she owned 20% of the shares. Must declare 15% of her income from the farm's operations while she is unemployed. The Court refused to reconsider the decision in the Caron Bernier case because there were no unusual circumstances justifying reconsideration.

other summary
Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
earnings farming calculation of income

Decision 46122 Full Text of Decision 46122

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment farming self-employed
Summary:

See summary indexed under FCA A-0725.99

other summary
Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
earnings farming calculation of income

Decision 43373 Full Text of Decision 43373

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment farming self-employed
Summary:

Claimant admits to owning the farm, on a 50% basis with his son and it is the claimant's 50% partner who decides on how the farm is operated and the claimant benefited from this operation. He states that one cannot be self-employed if one has no knowledge or control. Umpire concluded that one can be self-employed and not have control or knowledge of the business. The claimant being self-employed allowed his son to control the operation of the business. The income received by the claimant from the farm operation is income pursuant to the Act.

other summary
Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
earnings farming definition

Decision 43229 Full Text of Decision 43229

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment farming self-employed
Summary:

Commission determined that the claimant is self-employed during the farming season. Claimant alleged that he does not work on the farm, but that it is just his wife and children who do so. Umpire found that the scale of the farm operation, the annual income of $42,415.65, the agricultural loan and the lack of proof of a thorough job search constitute sufficient evidence that the claimant chose to work on the farm during the summer.

other summary
Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment proof

Decision A-0416.97 Full Text of Decision A-0416.97

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment farming self-employed
Summary:

The FCA found no reviewable error on the part of the Umpire. The facts support the conclusion that the claimant was an investor and not self-employed within the meaning of the Reg. Case distinguishable from Caron Bernier (A-0136.96).**NOTE: For more information on the facts, refer to CUB 37627.

other summary
Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
earnings farming allocation of earnings
earnings farming definition

Decision 37627 Full Text of Decision 37627

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment farming self-employed
Summary:

Claimant owns 50% of the farm. Employed full-time away from the farm and she puts in an insignificant amount of time (12 hrs/year) doing the farm's books. Umpire stated that the claimant, although part-owner in title of a farm, is not self-employed in farmings and does not work on the farm on a regular basis. He did not find that the claimant's involvement in the farm is of such an extent so as to be considered self-employment in farming within the meaning of par. 57(6)(b). Her activities vis-a-vis the farm are that of a concerned investor.**NOTE: The Commission has appealed to the F.C. The claimant is self-employed and however minimal the claimant's participation is in the farming operation, she is subject to an allocation of part of the farming income.

other summary
Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
earnings farming allocation of earnings
earnings farming definition

Decision A-0136.96 Full Text of Decision A-0136.96

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment farming self-employed
Summary:

Labourer for the farm from 4-07 to 21-10-94, and also engaged in a co-adventure (with 40% of the shares in the business). Advised to declare 15% of her income from the farm. The BOR found that she was not a self-employed worker but simply a worker, and that her income from the farm should not be taken into account. This decision was set aside by the FCA, which ruled that a distinction cannot be made, from the regulatory provision, between the self-employed worker and the worker who operates a business, as the BOR did. The income from the farm that the claimant received after her lay-off, when she continued to render services to the business even though she did not devote more than an hour and a half to it per day, five days a week, have value as earnings and must be deducted from the benefits.

other summary
Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment corporate veil
earnings farming calculation of income

Decision A-0182.96 Full Text of Decision A-0182.96

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment farming self-employed
Summary:

The claimant, who was the sole proprietor of the woodlands from which the wood that was sold came, alleged that he was unable to cut wood because of a partial disability, and was assisted by his uncle and his son. Also alleged that he had given the wood to his son and did not receive any profit from it. The BOR found that the claimant participated in the operations to the best of his capacities and had to be regarded as a self-employed person, and that the gains he realized had value as earnings and should have been declared. A straight case of assessment of fact, and both the Umpire and the FCA refused to intervene.

other summary
Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
penalties knowingly
earnings farming definition

Decision 30067 Full Text of Decision 30067

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment farming self-employed
Summary:

In relying solely on the net income, the Board erred in law. Claimant was engaged in a farming operation which was the type of operation that one would engage in as a principle means of livelihood. Failing to apply the factual situation to the jurisprudence (CUB 5454) is an error in law.


Decision 25491 Full Text of Decision 25491

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment farming self-employed
Summary:

While his wife did a great portion of the farming work, claimant owned the farm, derived benefit and profit from the farm and did, on a fairly regular basis, help work at operating the farm. It is not necessary to do all the labour and management duties on one's own to be considered self-employed.


Decision 25285 Full Text of Decision 25285

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment farming self-employed
Summary:

The fact that he has not any history of full-time work during the farming season for the past 18 years, excepting his school bus driving job, and the fact that he had no history of full-time or part-time work during July and August, indicate that his farming contribution is not minor in extent.


Decision 24944 Full Text of Decision 24944

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment farming self-employed
Summary:

Claimant worked off the farm from 4-91 to 9-93. He works on the farm after his working hours and on weekends. During the time he works off the farm, the farming is done by his brother and hired help. This does not negate the fact that he is fully employed on the farm when he is laid off.


Decision 24918 Full Text of Decision 24918

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment farming self-employed
Summary:

We have here a gentleman who is a successful electrician and who is a successful farmer. But we are dealing with UI benefits, and the purpose of UI benefits is to help people who have no work and who need the benefits on which to live. That is certainly not the case here.


Decision 24920 Full Text of Decision 24920

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment farming self-employed
Summary:

School bus driver applying for UI benefits in the summer months and whose farming operation is substantial, not minor in extent. The Board erred in law by not considering the criteria sufficiently in CUB 5454 and applying those six principles.


Decision 24917 Full Text of Decision 24917

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment farming self-employed
Summary:

Worked evenings as truck driver 11 weeks ending 10-92. History as bus driver. Each of 6 criteria discussed. The farm operation was infinitely more substantial than his spreading gravel over the township roads and was his principal occupation with extensive operation in cattle, grain and equipment.


Decision 21528 Full Text of Decision 21528

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment farming self-employed
Summary:

Owns a small ranch of 572 acres, 53 head of cattle and 33 calves. Works some 10 hours a day on the farm and considers farming his main livelihood. He never worked off the farm during the summer months. The Board erred in finding that he was a typical minor farmer. The Board was wrong in law to apply para. 57(6)(b) because that provision is specifically limited to calculating income for the purpose of 57(2)(a). It is clear that the formula has no application to a determination under ss. 43(2) as to whether farming is minor in extent.

other summary
Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees weight of statements credibility
umpires grounds of appeal without regard for material

Decision 21529 Full Text of Decision 21529

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment farming self-employed
Summary:

Owns 3,438 acres of which 640 are in pasture and 600 of hay land. Has 48 head of cattle plus 30 calves. He has had no work off the farm for over 20 years. He says that farming was his main livelihood. The Board erred. It gave too great emphasis to the money derived from the farm. The Board failed to take into account other criteria which are legally relevant. It did not address the uncontested information that claimant had not, for over 20 years, worked away from the farm during the summer. Nor did it consider the scope of the cattle operation.

other summary
Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees errors in law not applying jurisprudence

Decision 20970 Full Text of Decision 20970

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment farming self-employed
Summary:

The fact that Revenue Canada found that the claimant was a restricted farmer for income tax purposes does not determine the issue of whether or not he was unemployed for the purpose of the UI Act.


Decision 20498 Full Text of Decision 20498

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment farming self-employed
Summary:

Her husband farms several quarter-sections of land, of which 5 are jointy owned by him and claimant. The jurisprudence is clear that mere ownership of joint title in farm land does not make one a partner in the operation of a farm. Worked as employee. Reg. 43(3) not applicable.

other summary
Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment corporate veil
board of referees rules of construction context and titles
board of referees errors in law misinterpretation of provision

Decision 20047 Full Text of Decision 20047

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment farming self-employed
Summary:

Mine worker laid off for the summer. I reject any hard and fast rule that anyone farming over 640 acres must be considered as making farming their main livelihood, as the Board suggests. Mine worker laid off for 3 months in the summer starting with July. Many thousands of farmers with no more acreage than claimant follow farming as a principal means of livelihood. The size of the farm here and the commitment to it can hardly be regardedas minor in extent.


Decision 18151 Full Text of Decision 18151

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment farming self-employed
Summary:

It was appropriate for the Board to look at the claimant's employment pattern over the preceding several years to see whether he had established a pattern of work off the farm during the summer. While I would not necessarily have come to the same conclusion for 1989, no error.


Decision 18129 Full Text of Decision 18129

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment farming self-employed
Summary:

Worked 10 weeks ending 3-87. Owns a 960-acre grain farm. Disentitled from 5-4. The Board noted that the last time he had off-farm employment during the summer was 5 years previous. No error of law. It was entitled to look at the pattern of his summer activities.


Decision 18001 Full Text of Decision 18001

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment farming self-employed
Summary:

School bus driver who files a claim in June. The Board hands down a favorable decision based on the fact that he has demonstrated availability. The Board has clearly confused 2 very distinct concepts, namely the status of unemployment and that of availability.

other summary
Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment availability for work

Decision 13528 Full Text of Decision 13528

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment farming self-employed
Summary:

The basis of the decision appears to be that the claimant's farm could possibly become a profitable enterprise sometime in the future. What is possibly going to happen in the future is not a relevant consideration. [p. 4]


Decision 13429 Full Text of Decision 13429

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment farming self-employed
Summary:

One can be self-employed in farming, even though he himself does not perform all of the multiplicity of chores and tasks. He did some of the physical work, despite his disability. No evidence that he was not jointly engaged with his wife in the management of the farm. [p. 9-10]

other summary
Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
earnings farming definition
earnings business returns as income

Decision 13148 Full Text of Decision 13148

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment farming self-employed
Summary:

School bus driver unemployed during the summer. "The quantum of income earned [farming work] is of no consequence in determining main or subsidiary occupation. The test is in the quantum of time... The scheme appears to work in odd ways..."


Decision 11393 Full Text of Decision 11393

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment farming self-employed
Summary:

Declared disentitled at beginning of active season. Burden on claimant to establish so minor in extent under 43(2) which applies even though case involves farming.


Decision 11385 Full Text of Decision 11385

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment farming self-employed
Summary:

[Case turns on its facts]. Off season in Quebec. Large farm recently expanded. In two years borrowed $75,000 and $41,000 from Office du crédit agricole. Reg. 43(3) not applicable.


Decision 11046 Full Text of Decision 11046

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment farming self-employed
Summary:

Here, the evidence clearly indicates that the claimant worked 30-40 hours per week on the farm and received $300-$400 monthly for those services. I fail to see how the Board could have concluded he was not engaged in the operation of a business as a farmer.


Decision 10926 Full Text of Decision 10926

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment farming self-employed
Summary:

Possible to be owner of a farm without also being operator within meaning of Reg. 43, for example if one has work done by other people. In this instance, board decided not only that insured was co-ower but that he paticipated in it.

Date modified: