Key legal question
Whether the insured was inapt for placement because of ongoing self-employment in the car body business
Extracted holding
The insured's activity was not proven to exceed an accessory occupation, and he remained available for salaried work; aptitude for placement was therefore not disproved.
Extracted reasoning
The Federal Court upheld the cantonal findings as non-arbitrary. The service failed to show, with sufficient substantiation, that the insured's activity was independent and time-consuming enough to cover the alleged loss of work. The cantonal court had assessed multiple pieces of evidence and could conclude the activity was only occupational and compatible with employment.