Flag of Canada
Service Canada Government of Canada
 
Français Contact Us Help Search Canada Site
Home        
   
Services for you


  

About the Index


  

How to use the Index


  

Issues Search


  

Last Fifty Cases Posted


  

Case Search


  

Judge Search


  

Claimant Search


  

Digest


  

Jurisprudence Library

 

THE INDEX OF JURISPRUDENCE
A SUPPLEMENT TO THE DIGEST OF BENEFIT ENTITLEMENT PRINCIPLES


Case Number: Claimant: Judge: Language: Decision date:
Decision A-0986.88 Bérubé Claude  Federal  French 2/21/90 
Decision Appealed: Appellant: Corresponding Case:
Allowed Majority  No N/A  15699 

Issue:Sub-Issue1Sub-Issue2Sub-Issue3
week of unemployment work without earnings 

Summary:

Claimant worked 50 hours a week in mother's snack bar. Mother and claimant's girlfriend also worked there. A claimant really providing benevolent services does not work within the meaning of ss. 10(1). The essential condition for s. 44 to apply is the existence of an employer-employee relationship, and the fact that a worker receives or expects to receive a benefit of some kind for his work is at the very basis of this relationship. One of the main questions at issue was precisely whether or not the work performed by claimant was really benevolent, i.e. whether he really did not expect to receive any pecuniary advantage. Not considered work under ss. 10(1) if work is really benevolent in nature.

Issue:Sub-Issue1Sub-Issue2Sub-Issue3
week of unemployment friends or relatives 

Summary:

One of the main questions at issue was precisely whether or not the work performed by claimant was really benevolent, i.e. whether he really did not expect to receive any pecuniary advantage. Not considered work under ss. 10(1) if work is really benevolent in nature. Claimant worked 50 hours a week in mother's snack bar. Mother and claimant's girlfriend also worked there. A claimant really providing benevolent services does not work within the meaning of ss. 10(1).

Issue:Sub-Issue1Sub-Issue2Sub-Issue3
week of unemployment benevolent work 

Summary:

One of the main questions at issue was precisely whether or not the work performed by claimant was really benevolent, i.e. whether he really did not expect to receive any pecuniary advantage. Not considered work under ss. 10(1) if work is really benevolent in nature. Claimant worked 50 hours a week in mother's snack bar. Mother and claimant's girlfriend also worked there. A claimant really providing benevolent services does not work within the meaning of ss. 10(1).

     
   
Last modified :  2005-11-24 top Important Notices