IN THE MATTER of the Unemployment Insurance Act
- and -
IN THE MATTER of a claim for benefits by
DAVID MORETTO
- and -
IN THE MATTER of an appeal by the Claimant to
an Umpire from a decision by the Board of Referees
given at Edmonton, Alberta, on December 27, 1995.
Heard at Edmonton, Alberta, Tuesday, July 9, 1996.
CORRESPONDING CUB: 34290A
CORRESPONDING CUB: 34290B
CORRESPONDING CUB: 34290C
CORRESPONDING FEDERAL COURT DECISION: A-667-96
CORRESPONDING FEDERAL COURT DECISION: A-686-99
DECISION
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROTHSTEIN, UMPIRE:
The issues in this appeal are whether the appellant was self employed, whether the self employment was minor in extent for the purposes of section 43 of the Unemployment Insurance Regulations and whether the appellant made false statements to the Commission.
The appellant had purchased Fun Under Five Ltd. - two toy stores - in November, 1993. He left his employment at McMan Youth Services on February 28, 1994, and claimed unemployment insurance benefits thereafter. The appellant filed reporting cards stating he was not working and received benefits.
The appellant says that Fun Under Five Ltd. was an investment only and that his work was minimal. He also says that he did not believe he was making false statements when he said he was not working on his reporting cards as Fun Under Five Ltd. was losing money.
The evidence before the Board of Referees was that on work schedules prepared by the appellant he was shown to have significant hours of work, e.g., 10-9, 10-6, on the vast majority of days during the relevant period. It is clear there was evidence before the Board of Referees on which it could conclude that the appellant was self employed, that he worked regularly and that such work was not minor in extent.
As to the making of false statements As, the Board of Referees concluded that in view of the great deal of time worked at his business, it was difficult for anyone to be persuaded that the false statements made by the appellant were not knowingly given. In concluding that an appellant made false statements, a Board of Referees is entitled to take into account the evidence, common sense and what is obvious, despite any technical explanations given by an appellant as to why he says he did not think he was making false statements. (See The Attorney General of Canada v. Gates (1995) 125 D.L.R. (4th) 348, per Linden, J.A.). In coming to its conclusion in this case, I think it is apparent that the Board of Referees took into account the evidence of the work schedules of Fun Under Five Ltd. prepared by the appellant and what was obvious, that he was working extensively in the business.
After reviewing all the evidence, I am satisfied the Board of Referees did not err in its decision, that the appellant was self employed, that his work was not minor in extent and that he knowingly made false statements.
The appeal is dismissed.
Rothstein, J.
Umpire
Claimant in Person
For the Commission:
Erika Bottcher
Dated at Edmonton, Alberta,
July 11, 1996.