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.

Summary:

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.