IN THE MATTER OF THE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
- and -
in the matter of a claim for benefit by
LESLIE TAYLOR
- and -
IN THE MATTER of an appeal by the claimant
from a decision of a Board of Referees given at
Burnaby, B.C., on the 11th day of April, 2001.
DECISION
Hon. David G. Riche
The issue in this case is whether or not the claimant was unemployed under s. 8, 10 and Regulation 43 of the Unemployment Insurance Act and not available for work under s. 14 and 40 of the Unemployment Insurance Act.
The Board of Referees determined that Mr. Taylor was involved in the operation of a business on his own account or in partnership or co-adventure in accordance with s. 43(l) of the Regulations. They concluded that the claimant could not maintain that he was only involved to a minor extent in his business. They found his time involvement was substantial.
Mr. Taylor was involved as a shareholder and director of a company known as Pacific Cedar Products Limited and through an arrangement made by he and other directors and owners of the company, laid themselves off for certain periods in 1993 and 1996. During the time of layoff the claimant collected UI benefits. The Board found that the evidence from the president, Mr. George Klassen, established that the claimant went to the business usually every day during the period of claim from four to eight hours a day.
The Board further found that he was at the premises to protect his significant investment in money and resources and the continuity of the enterprise and its financial success.
Mr. Taylor was a supervisor at the mill and also a millwright.
A review of the transcript and the evidence on file satisfies me that the Board of Referees were correct in making the findings that they did. There was ample evidence to show that the claimant was at the premises which he partly owned and was a director for each day of his period of layoff. In the transcript the claimant states clearly at line 26 of page 82: "I wouldn't meet every day. Most of the time I was there every day, yes. But not to actually, if I didn't really want to be there I didn't have to be." And then when he was asked did he keep a job search list, he said: "No, I didn't actually".
The Board of Referees correctly determined the law when they stated: "We rely on CUB 18243: the onus is upon the claimant to demonstrate a readiness to accept suitable employment and actively seek work: this is best proved by an active job search. A mere statement by a claimant is insufficient and evidence of the claimant's efforts must be presented."
Having reviewed the transcript and the record, I am satisfied that the Board of Referees had ample evidence before them to dismiss the claimant's appeal on both issues.
For these reasons the appeal of Leslie Taylor is dismissed.
DAVID G. RICHE
Umpire
December 4, 2002
St. John's, NF