EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE |
Canada (Attorney General) v. Alaie
A-682-02
2003 FCA 416, Evans J.A.
6/11/03
4 pp.
Judicial review of Umpire's decision (CUB 54187) allowing appeal from Board of Referees' decision upholding CEIC decision respondent did not qualify for employment insurance benefits in six months helped his wife run small café purchased by respondent--Under Employment Insurance Regulations, s. 30(1), person considered to have worked full working week, hence ineligible for employment insurance benefits during week in which self-employed in operation of business on claimant's own account or in partnership or co-adventure--However, Regulations, s. 30(2) providing for exception if claimant's self-employment in operation of business "to such a minor extent that a person would not normally rely on that employment or engagement as a principal means of livelihood"--Umpire concluded that Board had erred in applying wrong legal test for determining whether claimant disqualified under s. 30(1)--Application allowed-- Umpire erred in law: claimant's intention to engage in full- time self employment not critical issue--Board correct to consider factors prescribed in s. 30; Umpire not at liberty to substitute some other test he may have thought would produce fairer result herein--Since Board applied right legal test, Umpire could only reverse Board's application of law to facts on ground of unreasonableness, in absence of some extricable principle of law: Budhai v. Canada (Attorney General), [2003] 2 F.C. 57 (C.A.)--Employment Insurance Regulations, SOR/96-332, s. 30(1) (as am. by SOR/97-31, s. 15), (2).