Summary of Issue


Decision A-0699.02 Full Text of Decision A-0699.02

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment minor in extent
Summary:

The Court found that, to determine whether the claimant is working a full working week and not minor in extent in a business, the most important and the most relevant factor was the time spent. The Court did, however, add that, not far behind, in terms of importance, was the claimant's intention and willingness to seek and immediately accept alternate employment.


Decision A-0682.02 Full Text of Decision A-0682.02

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment minor in extent
Summary:

The Claimant invested a lot of time, effort and money in establishing a restaurant with his wife. The BOR went through the six factors test to conclude that the claimant was not "minor in extent". The Umpire in this case substituted some other test. The Court found the Umpire could only reverse the Board's application of the law on the ground of simple unreasonableness. When the BOR deals with a question of mixed fact and law, an Umpire cannot overturn their decision if it is reasonable.


Decision 56585 Full Text of Decision 56585

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment minor in extent
Summary:

The claimant's sollicitor argued that the Umpire should look at each week of the year to determine whether or not the claimant was employed in the business to a minor extent. Held that to determine whether or not somebody is involved in a business to a minor extent, one must look at the whole operation over the whole period. Reference made to the FCA decision in Robin M. Childs, A-0418.97. Appeal dismissed.


Decision 53297A Full Text of Decision 53297A

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment minor in extent
Summary:

Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0699.02


Decision 54187 Full Text of Decision 54187

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment minor in extent
Summary:

Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0682.02


Decision A-0772.00 Full Text of Decision A-0772.00

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment minor in extent
Summary:

After several years of claiming benefits during the winter months, the claimant, a golf professional, decided to establish a golf school with another pro. Found that the employment was not minor in extent and claimant disentitled for not being unemployed. The BOR and the Umpire mainly focused on the fact that both owners remained available for work and allowed the claimant's appeal. The FCA found that the BOR had failed to address the 6 criteria set by Regulations and appeared to have collapsed the "minor in extent" and the "availability for work" issues into the single question of availability. Case returned to BOR for reconsideration.


Decision A-0019.99 Full Text of Decision A-0019.99

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment minor in extent
Summary:

Claimant ran a guest house, where she lived and provided service 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. She was considered not to be unemployed because of the time she devoted to the business. Decision upheld by BOR and Umpire. FCA determined that claimant could not be doing volunteer work because she was lodged free of charge and was supported by government grants. Furthermore, because of the nature of the contract between the claimant and the government, the claimant was a self-employed person within the meaning of s. 43 of the Regulations.

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

Decision A-0361.98 Full Text of Decision A-0361.98

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment minor in extent
Summary:

Claimant worked 10 hours/week as a real estate agent while receiving benefits. He was found not to be unemployed and this decision was upheld by the BOR and the Umpire. According to the FCA, BOR erred in accepting the claimant's testimony that he did only 10 hours of unpaid work and deciding that he could count on this work as a principal means of livelihood. Requirements of subsection 43(2) met and claimant's appeal allowed.

other summary
Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment principal means of livelihood
week of unemployment real estate salespersons

Decision 42381 Full Text of Decision 42381

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment minor in extent
Summary:

Clmt's involvement in business was not "minor in extent": he controlled his own working hours, owned close to 40% of the shares, did not engage in any in depth job search and hoped to make the business a successful one so that his position would be full-time.

other summary
Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment preparatory activities in commencing business
week of unemployment principal means of livelihood

Decision 39592A Full Text of Decision 39592A

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment minor in extent
Summary:

According to criteria set in sSchwenk, claimant's overall participation in the business was minor in extent. The time he spent in the business must be viewed by taking into account the circumstances under which claimant attended the business premises. He was unemployed waiting for a recall to work. He was not there because he had to be there.

other summary
Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment principal means of livelihood
week of unemployment circumstances nature and amount
week of unemployment circumstances time spent

Decision A-0840.97 Full Text of Decision A-0840.97

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment minor in extent
Summary:

Case identical to A-0839.97. See summary indexed under that reference.

other summary
Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees weight of statements credibility

Decision A-0839.97 Full Text of Decision A-0839.97

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment minor in extent
Summary:

Considering the claimant’s duties as president of the company and the amount of money invested, the BOR refused to accept the claimant’s version of the facts regarding the amount of time spent on the business. The Umpire found that the BOR did not err in law in its decision and the BOR’s reasons are consistent with current jurisprudence (reference to Jouan, A-366-94). The FCA ruled that the BOR’s finding is reasonable and, in fact, irrefutable before the Umpire and dismissed the claimant’s appeal.

other summary
Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees weight of statements credibility

Decision A-0418.97 Full Text of Decision A-0418.97

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment minor in extent
Summary:

Self-employment is not to be determined on week-to-week basis. Impractical to sanction a legal framework in which self-employment is determined by the number of hours worked in any one week. Such an understanding would require the BOR to set the maximum number of hours a claimant is entitled to work to consider the "minor in extent" provision. That approach would lead to the absurd result that in one week a claimant would be deemed to be self-employed, but not in others. Incompatible with the legislative scheme as a whole.

other summary
Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
penalties knowingly
board of referees jurisdiction assess credibility duty
week of unemployment full working week
board of referees hearings attendance of third party
penalties proof

Decision A-0195.97 Full Text of Decision A-0195.97

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment minor in extent
Summary:

Claimant set up a private legal practice and was found not unemployed. While recognizing that the BOR had not specifically dealt with the aspect of minor in extent, the Umpire was of the view that the evidence on file showed that it did consider this aspect. The FCA was of the view that the BOR had sufficiently considered the "minor in extent" aspect despite a lack of precision in so doing and dismissed the claimant's request for judicial review.

other summary
Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees errors in law statement of facts required
penalties knowingly
board of referees statement of facts not to be read strictly
penalties clear and simple language

Decision A-0662.97 Full Text of Decision A-0662.97

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment minor in extent
Summary:

Case identical to the Michel Turcotte case. See summary indexed under A-0664.97.

other summary
Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment circumstances time spent
week of unemployment principal means of livelihood

Decision A-0664.97 Full Text of Decision A-0664.97

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment minor in extent
Summary:

The claimant, a co-adventurer in a business, reported spending 35-40 hours on the business when he was working at the jobsites but left out the time he spent trying to acquire contracts since he did not draw a salary for this. The Umpire found that the BOR had not given sufficient weight to the "time spent" factor and allowed the Commission’s appeal. The FCA refused to intervene and dismissed the claimant’s request for judicial review.

other summary
Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment circumstances time spent
week of unemployment principal means of livelihood

Decision A-0245.97 Full Text of Decision A-0245.97

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment minor in extent
Summary:

Claimant worked in his wife's restaurant from 6:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m., seven days a week. He didn't receive any remuneration for that work. FCA found that the Umpire didn't give full effect to the Jouan decison when he concluded that because claimant worked gratuitously to assist his spouse, his employment was minor in extent. Court concluded that when applying the Jouan analysis to this case the evidence shows that claimant's involvement in the business was not so minor in extent that one would not normally follow it as a principal means of livelihood.

other summary
Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment principal means of livelihood
week of unemployment work without earnings

Decision 40174 Full Text of Decision 40174

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment minor in extent
Summary:

Umpire ruled that when one completes the education requirements for admission to a profession and opens an office there is a presumption that he does so with the intention of engaging in, or following, the private pratice of that profession as a principal means of livelihood. This presumption is rebutable if the claimant spent so little time on his private practice that it could be said that his self-employment was minor in extent. Umpire found that it is a border-line case but he concluded that the facts bring claimant within subsection 43(2).

other summary
Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment circumstances financial success or failure
week of unemployment principal means of livelihood
week of unemployment professional field

Decision 40062 Full Text of Decision 40062

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment minor in extent
Summary:

Claimant concedes that he worked 40 hrs/week in his business. Pursuant to Jouan A-0366.94, claimant is not entitled to UI benefits. Time spent is substantial, that ends the matter right away and a business is not "minor in extent".

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

Decision 39905 Full Text of Decision 39905

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment minor in extent
Summary:

It cannot be said that a clmt who controls his own hours of work and admits overseeing the operations of six businesses that "the employment is so minor in extent that a person would not normally follow it as a principal means of livelihood".

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

Decision 39886 Full Text of Decision 39886

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment minor in extent
Summary:

BOR did not question the time spent by claimant in the operation of the business. They only took into account the fact that she owned 50% of the business and expected long-term profit from it. Umpire concluded that these factors alone did not support a finding that her involvement was not so minor in extent.

other summary
Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment circumstances continuity of the business
week of unemployment circumstances time spent

Decision A-0986.96 Full Text of Decision A-0986.96

summary
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.

other summary
Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
penalties weeks of unemployment

Decision 38283 Full Text of Decision 38283

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment minor in extent
Summary:

Although the Jouan decision related to a case of employment for 50 hours a week, the fact remains that 35 to 40 hours a week is a sizable number of hours to devote to a business. Consequently, it could not be said that the involvement in the business was so minor in extent that it could not be followed as a principal means of livelihood.

other summary
Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment principal means of livelihood
week of unemployment circumstances time spent

Decision 37174 Full Text of Decision 37174

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment minor in extent
Summary:

The BOR did not take into account the exception provided for in subsection 43(2) of the Regulations and did not consider the time spent on the business. Evidence showed that the claimant could have taken up full-time employment on several occasions without harming the outfitting operation. Umpire found that the claimant’s work was so minor in extent that he would not have been able to rely on the outfitting operation as a means of livelihood.

other summary
Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment circumstances time spent
week of unemployment principal means of livelihood

Decision A-0697.95 Full Text of Decision A-0697.95

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment minor in extent
Summary:

Relying on Jouan (A-366-94), the FCA held that decision did not focus sufficiently on the primary factor relevant to the determination of whether self-employment is minor within the meaning of ss.43(2) of UIR which is the time devoted by the claimant tohis business.

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

Decision 29511 Full Text of Decision 29511

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment minor in extent
Summary:

Refer to: A-0697.95

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

Decision 33686 Full Text of Decision 33686

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment minor in extent
Summary:

Claimant co-owns farm with wife and works at the farm when not employed as a welder/labourer. Claimant's wife has established that she can operate the farm during October to April all by herself, leaving him available to engage in paid off-farm employment during those months.

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

Decision 27857B Full Text of Decision 27857B

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment minor in extent
Summary:

For the purposes of Reg 43(1)(a), operation of business must include attending to all aspects of the business. Once the business is in operation, not possible to separate time spent between matters pertaining to its acquisition and dispute with vendors and time spent in the operation of business.


Decision A-0707.94 Full Text of Decision A-0707.94

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment minor in extent
Summary:

FCA is of the view that it was open to the Umpire to set aside the Commission's decision with respect to the applicability of SS. 43(2) of the UIR. Held that the Commission failed to have regard to evidence that the claimant had operated these businesses for many years while holding full-time employment elsewhere. By taking this evidence into account there was a basis for the Umpire concluding as he did that the claimant's work at the businesses was minor only.

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

Decision A-0406.94 Full Text of Decision A-0406.94

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment minor in extent
Summary:

All 6 factors of CUB 5454 examined by Umpire. Judgment overturned by FC. In a case of this kind under ss. 43(2), the real question to answer is whether the amount of time spent in self-employment was so insignificant that a person would not normally pursue that employment as a means of livelihood.


Decision 24884 Full Text of Decision 24884

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment minor in extent
Summary:

Refer to: A-0406.94


Decision 24632 Full Text of Decision 24632

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment minor in extent
Summary:

Refer to: A-0366.94

other summary
Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment off-season
week of unemployment rationale
board of referees rules of construction official wordings differ

Decision A-0366.94 Full Text of Decision A-0366.94

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment minor in extent
Summary:

Other factors can never be relevant on their own, the conclusion in a particular case depends directly and necessarily on the "time spent". In the case of a claimant who spends, on a regular basis, 50 hours per week to the affairs of his own business, there is no way that he can invoke ss. 43(2). All 6 factors of CUB 5454 mentioned. MAGEE and VEILLET referred to. It is my conviction that the most important, most relevant and only basic factor to be taken into account has to be, in all cases, the time spent. Whatever may be the status of the other factors, they can never be relevant on their own.

other summary
Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment rationale
board of referees rules of construction official wordings differ

Decision 26138 Full Text of Decision 26138

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment minor in extent
Summary:

For some 25 years, claimant gainfully employed while being the owner of two successful businesses. He claims he is spending only 4 to 6 hours a week into the businesses. Taking into consideration the claimant's total investment in his operations as well as the total of his assets and liabilities, the Commission was of the view that the nature and the magnitude of both businesses would require much more attention than the claimant says he gives to it. Claimant considered not unemployed; decision upheld by the BOR. Decision reversed by the Umpire who held that the ownership of any business is not determinative of self-employment. Decision appealed to the FCA. See FCA A-0707.94.

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

Decision A-0058.94 Full Text of Decision A-0058.94

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment minor in extent
Summary:

Those tests (6 described in CUB 5454) are much more suitable in the case of a claimant who is operating his own business than for the employee who determines his own working hours. However, three of those tests, namely the 1st, the 5th and the 6th remain useful. For the interpretation of ss.43(2) of the Reg., CUB 5454 proposes the following 6 tests which have been accepted by this court: 1) the time element; 2) the monies invested; 3) the success or failure; 4) the continuity; 5) the nature of the employment; 6) the availability of other work.

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

Decision 23879 Full Text of Decision 23879

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment minor in extent
Summary:

Refer to: A-0058.94

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

Decision 23823 Full Text of Decision 23823

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment minor in extent
Summary:

I cannot see where these six factors of CUB 5454 were considered. The six factors must be considered on the record in order for an Umpire to determine if the Board has properly exercised its jurisdiction in deciding whether ss. 43(2) applies. The Board has not done so here. It has erred in law.


Decision 23158 Full Text of Decision 23158

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment minor in extent
Summary:

The six factors to be considered were examined in relation to a veterinarian who spent 10 hours (flexible, could be in evenings or deferred) a week at the clinic in which she had a 50% interest and who normally held two other employments for 72 and 23 to 40 hours per month in similar clinics.


Decision 17055A Full Text of Decision 17055A

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment minor in extent
Summary:

Refer to: A-1085.92

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

Decision A-1085.92 Full Text of Decision A-1085.92

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment minor in extent
Summary:

If the Board thought that the law required it to find that anyone who tried to start a business while receiving UI was by that fact alone ineligible for benefits, that would be going well beyond the law. The correct perspective is one of proportionality rather than of absoluteness. The jurisprudence is clear that no one factor in CUB 5454 is determinative. Thus, the Board was not "required" (error in law) to conclude that because she spent considerable time in her store and had invested a significant amount of money in it that it was not minor in extent. Concurred in by FC. Ss. 43(2) has been interpreted by the Schwenk case (CUB 5454) to require that a Board of Referees must take into account six factors. The Umpire held that the Board had not appreciated the full context of the law which it was being asked to apply and correctly identified an error of law. At some point a person starting a business while on UI may, in terms of the 6 criteria in CUB 5454, become so involved with its operation that it can no longer be described as minor in extent. This may even occur at the beginning of the involvement, but only if so found as a matter of fact.

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

Decision 22314 Full Text of Decision 22314

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment minor in extent
Summary:

All factors enumerated in CUB 5454 examined and discussed in the context of a grain farm built up over a number of years while claimant held full-time employment off the farm. While the claimant has proved that his involvement with the farm could be minor in extent, I cannot conclude that he has proven that his de facto involvement with the farming operation in 1990 and 1991, was actually minor in extent in the terms of ss. 43(2).


Decision 21936 Full Text of Decision 21936

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment minor in extent
Summary:

He did spend considerable time at his wife's bistro. He was doing so however on a voluntary basis and out of boredom. He did not have enough to do to occupy his time. Not locked into working regular hours. His wife could increase her hours. It was a one-person business.

other summary
Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
penalties proof need for an explanation weight

Decision 21931 Full Text of Decision 21931

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment minor in extent
Summary:

He contributed a significant amount of money to the enterprise: an initial investment of $20,000 and another $40,000 within one year. The larger the financial commitment, the more likely it is that that business is intended to be or become one's principal source of livelihood.

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

Decision 19228 Full Text of Decision 19228

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment minor in extent
Summary:

The 6 criteria mentioned in CUB 5454 are listed and explained with their rationale.

other summary
Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees statement of facts as a requirement

Decision 18111 Full Text of Decision 18111

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment minor in extent
Summary:

Time is not the only factor to be considered though it is perhaps the most important. Others are: the amount of capital invested, the consequences of success or failure, the continuity of the business, the nature of the business as compared to claimant's training, and job search.

other summary
Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment work without earnings
week of unemployment preparatory activities in commencing business
reconsideration of claim overpayment time limitation for recovery

Decision 18060 Full Text of Decision 18060

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment minor in extent
Summary:

In considering the time spent by a claimant on a self-employment activity, it is not sufficient to merely add up the total number of hours per day. One must also consider the extent to which there was flexibility as to when that time might be spent.

other summary
Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment principal means of livelihood
week of unemployment rationale
penalties business
board of referees natural justice free of bias

Decision 14001B Full Text of Decision 14001B

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment minor in extent
Summary:

The line of work taken up by claimant, a car salesman working an average of 30 hours a week, is precisely that which provides income to hundreds of others. There is no basis for a finding that it is minor in nature.


Decision 17022 Full Text of Decision 17022

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment minor in extent
Summary:

I agree that time spent is a consideration but it is only one factor and certainly is not determinative. Other factors to be considered, such as capital and resources invested, financial success or failure, continuity of enterprise, nature of work, willingness to accept work. What is made clear in CUB 11174 is that the operative time period for applying reg. 43(2) is at the time the claim is made and while UI is received, not some future point in time when it could be said that claimant could rely on the business as a principal means of livelihood.


Decision 16446 Full Text of Decision 16446

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment minor in extent
Summary:

Operation of a gas station. 6 factors to consider as outlined in CUB 5454. It is not the intention of the UI Act that those who engage in self-employment as a full-time occupation should be entitled to benefits if their self-employment proves to be unprofitable.

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

Decision 15652 Full Text of Decision 15652

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment minor in extent
Summary:

6 factors as per CUB 5454. Times of day or week work is done is relevant. Claimant saw her restaurant function as purely supervisory, hired qualified help to manage business in her absence. Retirement investment staffed so she could continue cooking in camps. Active job search.

other summary
Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment applicability
week of unemployment restaurants
board of referees errors in law decision incomplete principal means of livelihood

Decision 15303 Full Text of Decision 15303

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment minor in extent
Summary:

Time spent at job (8 hours a day), the investment made (a truck), the type of work (truck driving being one of the jobs he did) and his unavailability for work point to empl. being significant and one from which he expected to earn his living. Lack of success does not alter this.

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

Decision 10840B Full Text of Decision 10840B

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment minor in extent
Summary:

Plainly Reg. 43(2) not limited solely to consideration of hours worked, because of English version, "minor in extent".

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

Decision 14856 Full Text of Decision 14856

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment minor in extent
Summary:

The Board did not address the proper issues. It found that claimant was engaged in operating a business and therefore was not unemployed. No attention given to whether activity minor in extent. I will therefore use s.96 to give my own decision.

other summary
Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees constitution of board member ineligible

Decision 14373 Full Text of Decision 14373

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment minor in extent
Summary:

Spending 3 to 5 hours per day on his business is not so minor in extent. Normal working day is 8 hours at most. Working 35% to over 50% of the normal day must not be regarded as "so minor in extent".

other summary
Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment preparatory activities in commencing business

Decision 14339 Full Text of Decision 14339

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment minor in extent
Summary:

While the time spent is a valuable element, it is not the sole one, nor do I think one can say that it is always the overriding one. French and English versions referred to as well as the factors listed in CUB 5454.

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

Decision 14027 Full Text of Decision 14027

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment minor in extent
Summary:

The Board weighed all the legal factors including whether minor in extent under 44(2). They found claimant was devoting considerably more time and energy to establishing his own business than to searching for employment elsewhere.


Decision 13727 Full Text of Decision 13727

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment minor in extent
Summary:

While the contracts obtained were not extensive it is evident that the claimant hoped that it would become her means of livelihood. It was the work she was trained for and she was merely doing it in a partnership as she was unable to obtain it as an employee.


Decision 13554 Full Text of Decision 13554

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment minor in extent
Summary:

Employment of commission salesman is normally considered to be principal means of livelihood. It is up to commission worker to prove that his case is an exception [under Reg. 43(2)].


Decision 13446 Full Text of Decision 13446

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment minor in extent
Summary:

Once it is determined that a claimant controls his own working hours, it is imperative to examine whether his employment is minor in extent under reg. 43(2).


Decision 13447 Full Text of Decision 13447

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment minor in extent
Summary:

Even though one spends 6 to 8 hours a day in a part-time job, this does not mean he may not be looking for other work the other 6 or 8 hours. The real question is the willingness to accept or seek other work.


Decision 12171 Full Text of Decision 12171

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment minor in extent
Summary:

Refer to: A-0432.86


Decision A-0432.86 Full Text of Decision A-0432.86

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment minor in extent
Summary:

Claimant stated at the beginning that he was setting up a company with a partner to make it his principal livelihood. The number of days paid for (3 days) over a long period is not the main factor. Judgment upheld by the FC without reasons.


Decision 13315 Full Text of Decision 13315

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment minor in extent
Summary:

It is extent of employment that counts, not money earned.

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

Decision 13284 Full Text of Decision 13284

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment minor in extent
Summary:

Whether exception in 43(2) applies must be decided not on basis of income earned by worker from employment referred to in 43(1), but rather on basis of extent of employment.


Decision 13145 Full Text of Decision 13145

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment minor in extent
Summary:

Real estate agent working 50 hours per week in evenings and on weekends; board examined availability and allowed case; error of law. Reg. 43(2): French text seems to impose purely quantitive standard. English expression more generic and opens door to application of multiple standards.

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

Decision 12898 Full Text of Decision 12898

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment minor in extent
Summary:

As for claimant's argument that he only worked part-time as taxi driver, this is not enough under 43(2) unless the amount of time and effort expended could be said to be so minor in extent that...

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

Decision 12859 Full Text of Decision 12859

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment minor in extent
Summary:

Criteria to be applied under 43(2) are rather subjective: predicated upon one's plight, circumstances and intentions as distinct from fixed, rigid norm. Criteria set out in CUB 5454 which has become an accepted reference by most Umpires.

other summary
Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees issue not recognized jurisdiction exceeded

Decision 12759 Full Text of Decision 12759

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment minor in extent
Summary:

Some of the factors which are useful in deciding under reg. 43(2) are set out in CUB 5454: [all 6 are enumerated and individually considered].

other summary
Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees errors in law decision incomplete principal means of livelihood

Decision 12124 Full Text of Decision 12124

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment minor in extent
Summary:

6 factors to be examined as noted in CUB-5454; time factor and wage factor only two; must also examine others.


Decision 12012 Full Text of Decision 12012

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment minor in extent
Summary:

Claimant must rebut presumption that arises under Reg. 43(1).

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

Decision 11824 Full Text of Decision 11824

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment minor in extent
Summary:

J. Dubé has elucidated 6 criteria for assistance under 43(2): (1) number of hours; (2) capital or resources used; (3) financial success or failure; (4) continuation of enterprise; (5) nature of empl.; and (6) eagerness to accept or look for other employment.

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

Decision 11544 Full Text of Decision 11544

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment minor in extent
Summary:

Claimant argues that since he did not receive any remuneration from business which he treated as an investment, reg. 43(2) applies. I do not agree. Jurisprudence consistently holds that remuneration is only one factor in determining principal means of livelihood.

other summary
Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
penalties business

Decision 11497 Full Text of Decision 11497

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment minor in extent
Summary:

He decided hours of work himself; did 20 to 25 hours per week; office work, preparing site, bids, collecting accounts, meeting customers. Extent of employment therefore not minor.


Decision 11496 Full Text of Decision 11496

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment minor in extent
Summary:

Reg. 43(2) does not refer to income from employment; strictly to whether employment minor in extent.


Decision 11431 Full Text of Decision 11431

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment minor in extent
Summary:

Such determination is a question of fact. A claimant may be available for suitable employment while engaged in some other project; no requirement for one to sit in idleness and not engage in a constructive pursuit. Receipt of pay is not determinative but merely a factor.


Decision 11174 Full Text of Decision 11174

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment minor in extent
Summary:

The expression "so minor" is so minor in specifics as to beg for positive interpretation. So minor of what? Capital? Effort? Time? Both English and French must mean the same. The French is clear, specific and positive, so its meaning is the meaning of 43(2) and it refers to time. Present tense is used. Since there seems to be no evidence to show that claimant devoted more time to his business after he was laid off than before, the balance of evidentiary preponderance tips in his favour. [p. 6-7]

other summary
Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment job search
week of unemployment principal means of livelihood

Decision 11071 Full Text of Decision 11071

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment minor in extent
Summary:

The jurisprudence does not say that each of the criteria listed in CUB 5454 has to be met one way or other, nor what weight should be given to each. At least 2 factors here indicating work not minor: hours and continuity. No list of job search.

other summary
Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
penalties business

Decision 10994 Full Text of Decision 10994

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment minor in extent
Summary:

Difference between English and French of 43(2). Latter refers to so little time and the other, not only to minor in extent, but also to "a person", i.e. an average citizen who could or could not normally make it his principal means of livelihood.

other summary
Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
reconsideration of claim overpayment authority to write off

Decision 10601 Full Text of Decision 10601

summary
Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment minor in extent
Summary:

It was not claimant who knew how to make the candy. While 25 hours a week is a significant percentage of a 40-hour work week, some of this must have been done on weekends or after hours. Possible to do this on a "side-endeavour" and still be available. [p. 10] Amount of time spent in the business endeavour is perhaps the most telling factor. CUB 5454 quoted. In addition to number of hours, the time of day or week in which work is usually done is also relevant. [p. 9] Factors as found in CUB 5454 examined. The fact that an attempt to establish a business fails is not an inescapable situation of minor extent. It is a factor to be weighed with others. Continuity of business is relevant. [p. 11]

other summary
Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
umpires jurisdiction oral evidence
umpires jurisdiction evidence new
umpires grounds of appeal natural justice and error in law or in fact
board of referees errors in law decision incomplete principal means of livelihood
Date modified: