TRANSLATION
IN THE MATTER of the EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
- and -
IN THE MATTER of a claim for benefits by
I.R.
- and -
IN THE MATTER of an appeal to an Umpire by the Canada Employment
Insurance Commission from the decision of a Board of Referees given on
December 2, 2010, at Sherbrooke, Quebec.
JACQUES BLANCHARD, Umpire
In this case, the only issue under appeal is the claimant’s unemployed status, which is a question of fact and law.
On November 1, 2008, the claimant began working for his brother. Given that the business was not making a profit, he did not receive earnings. He worked 8 to 11 hours a day, 6 or 7 days a week.
On February 17, 2009, the Commission informed the claimant that he could not receive benefits effective November 3, 2008, because he could not be considered unemployed (Exhibit 13).
This decision resulted in an overpayment of $4,350 (Exhibit 16).
The claimant underwent 12 weeks of therapy from August to October 2008 and his caseworker suggested that he keep himself occupied, which is why he was helping his brother every day (Exhibit 17).
A week of unemployment is defined as a week during which a claimant does not complete an entire week of work.
However, in this case, it appears that the claimant was working 6 or 7 days a week as a volunteer at his brother’s business.
It was only when the Commission stopped paying the claimant benefits that his brother began paying him earnings of $300 a week.
Did the Board of Referees err in fact and in law?
The Board of Referees’ finding on the claimant’s unemployment was based on Exhibit 26. Therefore, as the trier of fact, the Board of Referees did not err in law.
Consequently, the Commission’s appeal is dismissed.
Jacques Blanchard
UMPIRE
Quebec City, Quebec
July 8, 2011