| 1 2 |
| Decision 25973A Full Text | | Issue: | Sub-Issue 1: | Sub-Issue 2: | Sub-Issue 3: | | week of unemployment | farming | full working week | | Summary:
Refer to: A-0281.95 | | 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 | | 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 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 | | 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 Issue(s): | Sub-Issue 1: | Sub-Issue 2: | Sub-Issue 3: | | earnings | farming | definition | |
| | |
| Decision 15700 Full Text | | 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 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 | | 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 | | 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 Issue(s): | Sub-Issue 1: | Sub-Issue 2: | Sub-Issue 3: | | week of unemployment | partnership and co-adventure | | |
| | |
| Decision 12341 Full Text | | 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 | | 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 10035 Full Text | | Issue: | Sub-Issue 1: | Sub-Issue 2: | Sub-Issue 3: | | week of unemployment | farming | full working week | | Summary:
Not unemployed under Reg. 42(2). Since he was working 7 days per week for more than 50 hours on father's farm, difficult to see how decision of board could be in error. |
| | |
| Decision 09973 Full Text | | Issue: | Sub-Issue 1: | Sub-Issue 2: | Sub-Issue 3: | | week of unemployment | farming | full working week | | Summary:
Insured working 5 days and 48 hours per week at father's farm in exchange for room and board. Board erred by not giving effect to Reg. 42(2). |
| | |
| Decision A-0725.99 Full Text | | 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 Issue(s): | Sub-Issue 1: | Sub-Issue 2: | Sub-Issue 3: | | earnings | farming | calculation of income | |
| | |
| Decision 46122 Full Text | | 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 Issue(s): | Sub-Issue 1: | Sub-Issue 2: | Sub-Issue 3: | | earnings | farming | calculation of income | |
| | |
| Decision 43373 Full Text | | 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 Issue(s): | Sub-Issue 1: | Sub-Issue 2: | Sub-Issue 3: | | earnings | farming | definition | |
| | |
| Decision 43229 Full Text | | 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 Issue(s): | Sub-Issue 1: | Sub-Issue 2: | Sub-Issue 3: | | week of unemployment | proof | | |
| | |
| Decision A-0416.97 Full Text | | 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 Issue(s): | Sub-Issue 1: | Sub-Issue 2: | Sub-Issue 3: | | earnings | farming | allocation of earnings | | | earnings | farming | definition | |
| | |
| Decision 37627 Full Text | | 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 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 | | 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 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 | | 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 Issue(s): | Sub-Issue 1: | Sub-Issue 2: | Sub-Issue 3: | | penalties | knowingly | | | | earnings | farming | definition | |
| | |
| Decision 30067 Full Text | | 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 | | 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 | | 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 | | 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 24920 Full Text | | 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 | | 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 24918 Full Text | | 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. |
| | |
| 1 2 |
