CUB 15702
TRANSLATION
IN THE MATTER of the Unemployment Insurance Act of 1971
- and -
IN THE MATTER of a claim for benefits by
OUELLET, Marco
- and -
IN THE MATTER of an appeal to an Umpire by the
claimant from a decision by the Board of Referees
given on May 14, 1987 at Rivière-du-Loup, QC
CORRESPONDING FEDERAL COURT DECISION: A-962-88
DECISION
DUBE, J.
The Commission determined that the claimant was not eligible for benefits under sections 17, 19 and 21 of the Act since he worked for his father on the family farm.
The board of referees unanimously upheld this determination.
It appears from the record that the claimant left the Canadian Armed Forces on March 29, 1985 and that from early April to the end of the year he worked between 40 and 60 hours a week on his father's farm. During 1986 from early January to March 16, he still worked 25 hours a week in agriculture. Following discussions with his parents it was agreed that he would be paid a salary for a certain period and that he would continue in this employment later without receiving a salary, that is, from March 17 to May 31, 1986. During the period when he did not receive a salary he received board and lodging free of charge. This information was obtained from the claimant himself and his mother and was included in the record.
In its reasons the board noted that "at the hearing of his case Mr. Carrier attempted to refute everything that had been stated earlier in the record" The board continued by saying that "the claimant and his father did not adduce any concrete fact to explain his hours of work". It concluded as follows:
Given the size of the farm and the period, which corresponded to the sugaring off and the preparations for seeding, the board of referees feels that the first statement was mote valid than that made at the rehearing.
The board’s decision, as it stands, is not a model of coherence but it indicates that the board concluded that there was an employer-employee relationship between the parents and the son, and this relationship involved a continuation of the employment even when the son did not receive a salary: he received a salary for a certain period and free room and board as well as unemployment insurance benefits during a later period.
In A.G. Canada v. Samsom, A-341-79, the court of Appeal stated:
It seems to us that a person may work for others within the meaning of section 21 even though he does not receive pay if, between the person providing the service and the person for whom it is performed, there is a relationship that is like or can be compared with that resulting from a contract of service.
Consequently, I cannot find that the board rendered a decision that was erroneous in law or that it based its decision on an erroneous finding of fact that it made in a perverse and capricious manner or without regard for the material before it under the provisions of section 95 of the Act.
This appeal cannot accordingly be allowed.
J.E. Dubé
UMPIRE