Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, please contact us to request an alternate format.
CUB 22296 - The Umpire was satisfied that the claimant's fishing activities fall within the provisions of subsection 86(3) of the Regulations in that they are so minor in extent and as such the claimant is considered to be unemployed. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Robert Hopkins
CUB 56362 - The Commission appealed the decision of whether or not the claimant was unemployed from November 26, 2001. The Board found that the claimant had worked for Newfoundland Fishing Services on a fishing vessel. The claimant worked two trips for the company and was then on layoff. The issue at hand is whether or not the claimant was caught under the provision of section 11(4). The Commission felt that the claimant had a work schedule of two trips on and one trip off. They felt that he was employed and therefore not entitled to benefits. The Board allowed the appeal because the ship continued to sail after the claimant was laid off and there was no evidence of him being rehired. The Umpire agrees with the findings of the Board in that there is no evidence to show a pattern which is required for subsection 11(4) to come into play. The appeal was dismissed.
CUB 58912 - The Commission is appealing an allocation of earnings by the Board. What is at issue is establishing the dates of the fishing trips. In CUB 54934, it was ruled that the day when the vessel leaves port and the day when the catch is being unloaded are considered part of the fishing trip. The skipper in this case is the father of the claimant, and their time together in the community does not necessarily mean that they are on a fishing trip and working. They, like many others, who travel for a living may decide to go to a location for a number of reasons, therefore these days are not considered working days. The Board found that the ROE's did not reflect the actual dates of the fishing trips. This is a fact finding that was reasonably open to the Board. In these circumstances, Umpire Krindle found that the Board decided that it would not apply the law, as set forth in CUB 54934. The appeal was dismissed.