Neutral Citation: 1993 ONICDRG 76

File No. A-002585

ONTARIO INSURANCE COMMISSION

BETWEEN:

THOMAS GEORGE PIPER

Applicant

and

ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY

Insurer

DECISION

Issues:

The Applicant, Thomas George Piper, was injured in a motor vehicle accident on February 28, 1992. He applied for and received accident benefits from the Insurer payable under Ontario Regulation 672 (the "No-Fault Benefits Schedule"), enacted under the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8.

The Applicant does not agree with the Insurer's calculation of the amount of weekly income benefit payable to him under sections 12 and 15 of the No-Fault Benefits Schedule. The issue of the Applicant's substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his occupation is not before me.

The parties were unable to come to an agreement concerning the method of calculating benefits at mediation, and Mr. Piper applied for arbitration of the issue under the Insurance Act.

The issue in this hearing is:

What amount of weekly income benefit is payable by the Insurer to Mr. Piper?

The Applicant also claims interest on any outstanding amounts owing, and his expenses incurred in the hearing.

Result:

1. The quantum of weekly income benefit that the Applicant is entitled to receive is $600, calculated on the basis of his pre-accident salary from employment. There is no deduction of "business expenses which cease" under section 12(7)3 of the No-Fault Benefits Schedule. There is no deduction under section 15 of the Schedule of post-accident income earned by Piper Electric Company Limited.

2. The Applicant is entitled to interest on any overdue amounts under section 24(4) of the No-Fault Benefits Schedule.

3. The Applicant is entitled to payment of his expenses incurred in respect of the hearing under section 282(11) of the Insurance Act.

Hearing:

The hearing was held in North York, Ontario, on May 11, 12, 19 and 28, 1993, before me, Janice Mackintosh, arbitrator.

Present at the Hearing:

Applicant:

Thomas George Piper

Applicant's Representative:

David M. Marcovitch Barrister and Solicitor

Insurer's Representative:

Lee Samis Barrister and Solicitor

Witnesses:

Thomas George Piper;

Peter Atherton, C.A. accountant for Piper Electric Company Limited;

Norm McCully, C.A., A.I.I.C. accountant retained by Insurer

Exhibits:

The parties filed eight exhibits which are listed in Appendix A.

Evidence and Findings:

The Applicant, Thomas George Piper, is the president and controlling shareholder of an electrical contracting business operating as Piper Electric Company Limited ("Piper Electric"). The Applicant incorporated the Company in 1953 and over the next forty years carried on his trade as an electrician through the Company.

Approximately ten years ago, the Applicant's son, Thomas Piper Jr., joined Piper Electric as an electrician. The Applicant is qualified as a master electrician which permits the Company to undertake certain kinds of electrical work. The Applicant's son has journeyman's qualifications. The Applicant described the Company as consisting of his son, himself, and an occasional helper when particular jobs required it.

Method of calculation proposed by the Applicant:

The relevant portions of the No-Fault Benefits Schedule are set out at Appendix B of this decision.

The Applicant is seeking weekly income benefits at the maximum amount of $600 under section 12 of the No-Fault Benefits Schedule on the basis that he is a salaried employee of the Company. He claims that he is entitled to receive 80 per cent of his gross weekly income, as reflected in the T4 statements of remuneration issued to him by the Company, for the 52-week period preceding the accident. Counsel for the Applicant submitted that salary income of an employee is not subject to the deduction of "business expenses which cease as the result of the accident" under section 12(7)3 of the No-Fault Benefits Schedule. Furthermore, since the Applicant received no further remuneration from Piper Electric from two to three weeks after the accident to the present, counsel maintained that section 15 of the No-Fault Benefits Schedule does not apply to income earned by Piper Electric following the accident.

During the five years preceding the motor vehicle accident, the Applicant drew a salary of approximately $600 per week from Piper Electric, in addition to bonuses at Christmas, other payments and taxable benefits. The Applicant testified that he decided the amount of bonuses to be paid to him by Piper Electric based on how hard he had been working and what the company could afford. From time to time the Applicant withdrew money from Piper Electric's shareholder's account to meet his own personal expenses. The Applicant testified that this occurred when sufficient funds were available in the shareholder's account and his personal account was depleted. The Applicant generally repaid these amounts to the company. To the extent that such withdrawals were not repaid to Piper Electric by the end of its fiscal year, they were attributed to the Applicant as income earned from employment. Piper Electric issued a T4 statement which included the Applicant's weekly salary, bonuses and any withdrawals from the shareholder's account which remained unpaid. The Applicant paid income tax on the total of these amounts.

In 1991, Piper Electric issued a T4 statement of remuneration paid to the Applicant in the amount of $56,154 inclusive of a taxable auto allowance. In 1992, Piper Electric issued a T4 statement for the period to March 31, 1992 in the amount of $9,354.07, inclusive of a taxable auto allowance (Exhibit 1).

The Applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident on February 28, 1992. He continued to draw his $600 weekly salary from Piper Electric for two or three weeks following his accident, until the company suffered a cash flow shortage. The Applicant took no further salary or other remuneration from Piper Electric after that time.

Mr. Atherton, a certified accountant, testified that he had prepared Piper Electric's T4 slips and corporate tax returns for over ten years. Before preparing them, Mr. Atherton reviewed Piper Electric's ledgers, maintained by the Applicant's son, and reviewed withdrawals from the shareholder's account. Mr. Atherton confirmed that to the best of his knowledge, the 1991 and 1992 T4 statements issued by Piper Electric accurately reflect the amount of salary, bonuses and other remuneration paid by the company to the Applicant. I accept Mr. Atherton's testimony concerning the total remuneration paid to the Applicant by Piper Electric.

Method of calculation proposed by the Insurer:

The Insurer claims that the Applicant should not be treated as an employee of Piper Electric, but rather as a self-employed person, using a corporate vehicle to carry on the business of an electrician. Counsel for the Insurer submitted that where the insured person is the controlling shareholder of a small, closely-held corporation, the corporate veil should be pierced and the income, expenses, and ceasing expenses of the company should be attributed to the insured person. Counsel urged me to adopt the approach taken by Senior Arbitrator Rotter in Stanley B. Moxon and State Farm Insurance (Commission File No. A-000090, July 18, 1991). In that case, the Applicant was a sign-painter, who also ran a sign leasing operation and designed and sold computer software programs through his company called Affordable Group Inc. Mr. Moxon was not treated as an employee of the company, but rather as a self-employed individual. Essentially, Senior Arbitrator Rotter looked past the corporate structure and attributed the pre and post-accident income and expenses of the company directly to Mr. Moxon when calculating the weekly income benefit payable to him. Business expenses which ceased as a result of the accident were deducted from Mr. Moxon's income from self-employment, pursuant to section 12(7)3 of the Schedule, before calculating his gross weekly income.

There are several important differences between the Moxon case and this one. Firstly, Senior Arbitrator Rotter reached her conclusions without the benefit of direct testimony from Mr. Moxon and without receiving argument and submissions from him. Secondly, the Affordable Group Inc. was essentially a one-man company in which it was assumed that the expenses incurred and the income generated were directly attributable to the efforts and activity of Mr. Moxon. When Mr. Moxon stopped working as the result of the accident, it was assumed that the activities of the company also ceased, with the exception of any post-accident income that may have been generated by Mr. Moxon's pre-accident activities.

I accept counsel for the Insurer's submission that the inquiry into the amount of an insured person's pre and post-accident income should go beyond mere form, to examine the substance of each individual's financial situation within the overall pre-accident context. The existence of a corporate structure and the issuance of a T4 statement by that company does not preclude further inquiry into the income of an insured person. This is especially true where a small, closely-held corporation is run by a sole or majority shareholder whose activities generate all or most of the revenue and expenses of the company. In such cases, it may be an easy matter to ignore the corporate structure and attribute the income, expenses, and ceasing expenses of the corporation directly to the activities of the insured person, to reach an accurate assessment of the weekly income benefit payable.

It becomes more difficult to make this kind of direct connection in small companies, such as Piper Electric, where two or more people combine their efforts to generate revenue and pursue the common goals of the corporation. Furthermore, in closely-held companies where considerable time has passed since incorporation, the number and distribution of shares among the shareholders may not accurately reflect their specific contributions to the current income and expenses of the company. This may be especially so in small, informal, family-run businesses such as Piper Electric. It may be very difficult to fairly apportion the income, expenses and ceasing expenses among the members of the company.

Role of the Applicant's Son in the Company:

The Applicant's son, Thomas Piper Jr., is an increasingly important member of Piper Electric.

When Thomas Piper Jr. first joined Piper Electric, the Applicant trained and supervised him. The Applicant directly controlled the financial decisions of Piper Electric and acknowledged that in the beginning, the company likely paid his son more salary and bonus than his services were actually worth on the open market. As time passed, however, the Applicant's son became highly skilled. His son worked independently on company projects and assumed bookkeeping, cheque writing, and record keeping functions for Piper Electric from the Applicant, because he was better at it. Thomas Piper Jr. holds the position of Secretary-Treasurer in the Company, is a minority shareholder and is consulted in the decisions of Piper Electric. The Applicant expressed the opinion that at the time of his motor vehicle accident, Piper Electric was paying his son less than his services were worth on the open market.

I find that the Applicant and his son share a long-term, mutually beneficial relationship that is facilitated by the legal structure of the company. When the Applicant was in the prime of his career, the corporate structure enabled him to take his son in, train him and pay him a living wage, while reducing the impact of income taxes upon the income generated, in large part by the Applicant's own activities within the company. The Applicant is now well past normal retirement age but has no plans to retire. He stated that over the years his only hobby has been work. Once he recovers from his injuries, the Applicant intends to return to his work, for as long as he is able, with his son's assistance. In the same manner as his father, the son will be able to subsidize his father's less productive years, through the corporate structure, while protecting himself from the full impact of taxes upon income largely generated by his own activities within Piper Electric.

Retained earnings of the Company:

The Applicant, his son, and Piper Electric are in business for the long haul and have conducted the company's affairs with the long term in mind. During the late 1980's when business was good, the Applicant and his son did not draw all the income generated by their activities out of Piper Electric, in salary and bonuses. Rather, income was left in the company to provide a cushion to carry Piper Electric and its two employees through the slow times. Piper Electric reported its income and paid taxes on it at the corporate rate. The accumulated income became part of the retained earnings of Piper Electric, upon which it could draw when needed.

The Applicant testified that years of experience had taught him that business was cyclical and that there would always be tough times. By year end March 1989, Piper Electric had built its retained earnings to a high of approximately $97,000. By year end March 31, 1992, approximately one month after Mr. Piper's accident, the retained earnings of Piper Electric had been reduced to approximately $35,359.

The Applicant acknowledged that for approximately two years prior to his motor vehicle accident, Piper Electric had been operating at a loss. The Applicant and his son had not been working at their full capacity due to the slow economy, and the cost of some of their supplies and operating expenses had increased. The Applicant agreed with the Insurer's analysis that the salary paid to him during the 52 weeks preceding the accident was not paid exclusively out of current income earned by Piper Electric during that period. The Applicant agreed that he had permitted Piper Electric to subsidize his salary by drawing down on its retained earnings. However, the Applicant observed that the retained earnings of Piper Electric had been left to accumulate for the very purpose of providing the company with sufficient funds to continue to operate and pay its employees a reasonable wage during tough economic times.

Assumptions made by Insurer in its calculation:

The method of calculation advanced by the Insurer relies upon certain assumptions which are set out in the report of Mr. McCully, chartered accountant and claims consultant, retained by the Insurer (Exhibit 6, dated May 3, 1993).

Mr. McCully assumed that the Applicant was self-employed, that the Applicant's son was an employee, and that all the pre and post-accident income of Piper Electric belonged to the Applicant after payment of expenses.

The term self-employment was defined by arbitrator Palmer in the case of Ranko Raickovic and Gore Mutual Insurance Company (Commission File No. A-002533, May 26, 1993) as follows:

"earning income directly from one's own business, trade, or profession rather than a specified salary or wages from an employer". (Webster's Third International Dictionary). The Dictionary of Canadian Law emphasizes the fact one is engaged in an occupation on one's own behalf.

While the Applicant did determine his own rate and method of payment, the company paid his $600 salary and Christmas bonus on a regular basis for several years preceding the accident, regardless of the specific fortunes of Piper Electric. Also, the Applicant did not work entirely on his own behalf. At least some of his efforts were devoted to training his son and, in the early days, subsidizing his son's income to some extent. Nor can it be said that the income of Piper Electric arose exclusively out of the Applicant's activities. It appears that the son's activities in the late 1980's contributed to the accumulation of the company's retained earnings. The son recorded the total number of hours of electrician services that he provided to Piper Electric (Exhibit 7), but there is no record of the hours spent ordering materials, maintaining the company's accounts and records, and writing cheques, for which the son was responsible. Furthermore, the Applicant testified that in the later years, his son was underpaid for the electrical work that he did for the company. There is also no corresponding record of the number of hours the Applicant contributed to Piper Electric. The documentation filed does not set out the respective contributions of the Applicant and his son to the retained earnings, income and expenses of the company.

The Insurer's accountant, Mr. McCully, noted at page 4 of his report dated May 3, 1993 (Exhibit 6):

This also raises the question as to whether Thomas Piper Jnr. is really a salaried employee. His wages have not and would not cease as a result of the accident.

Not surprisingly, the Company did not cease its operations following the Applicant's accident.

Neither the Applicant nor his son were prepared to close down a business which had provided their living for over forty years, through both good and bad economic times. The son clearly holds a greater interest in Piper Electric than that of a mere employee. His participation is more akin to that of a partner. The Applicant testified that after the accident, his son struggled along in Piper Electric, putting in extra unpaid time on weekends and evenings, determined to help the company ride out both his father's accident and the poor economy.

Following the accident, the Applicant's son made greater use of the services of a relatively unskilled helper to assist in some projects. The Applicant testified that he and his son were capable of working much more efficiently on projects than were his son and the unskilled helper, or his son alone. It follows that any upswing in the economy resulting in a greater demand for Piper Electric's services could be handled more efficiently and profitably by the Applicant and his son working together, than by his son working alone or with an unskilled helper.

According to the analysis of Mr. McCully, the overall sales of Piper Electric did not significantly slip following the Applicant's accident and may, in fact, have increased slightly. However, expenses increased significantly and the overall profitability of the company was down. Contrary to the Insurer's assumption, the expenses of Piper Electric did not appear to vary directly with the level of sales carried out by the company.

The Insurer submitted that the provisions of section 12(7)3 and section 15 of the Schedule were not intended to apply only to a self-employed individual, but were also appropriate for an individual with the controlling interest in a corporate structure which maintains one or more employees. Section 12(7)3 of the No-Fault Benefits Schedule recognizes that business expenses, incurred by a self-employed individual to earn income, may cease when that person becomes disabled and stops working following an accident. However, there is no specific recognition in the Schedule that where a business continues to operate, its associated expenses including the salaries of regular and replacement employees might increase in the aftermath of an accident involving one of the principals of a company. Nor is there any recognition that while expenses may increase, the efficiency and overall profitability of a business may decrease as the result of the disability of one of the principals.

Furthermore, section 15 of the Schedule makes no express provision for the deduction of continuing expenses from the calculation of income earned post-accident, to balance the deduction of "ceasing expenses" from pre-accident income. This could result in a higher post-accident income being deducted from a lower pre-accident income, thereby reducing the amount of weekly income benefit payable by the Insurer.

The accountant retained by the Insurer proposed a formula for the calculation of weekly income benefits under sections 12 and 15 of the Schedule, which attempts to address some of the deficiencies referred to above. The formula treats the continuing expenses of salaried employees (including the son) as "ceasing expenses" under section 12 and also deducts these expenses from the calculation of income under section 15. In this manner, a portion of the ongoing business expenses of the company is covered by the weekly income benefit paid to the Insured person, up to the $600 per week policy limits (or $1,050 per week, if optional benefits are in place). Using this formula, the Insurer's calculation concluded that the Applicant was entitled to income benefits at the rate of $131.09 per week for the period March 7 to 31, 1993 and $255.63 per week for the year ended March 31, 1993. The amount of benefit payable by the Insurer will continue to fluctuate depending upon the post-accident income generated by the company.

The formula begins to break down in situations where, prior to the accident, a company or business was operating at or below the break-even point, its continuing expenses were high, its actual ceasing expenses were minimal, and its profit margin was low or non-existent. The Insurer's formula provides only limited accommodation to a company that is forced to incur additional expenses to replace the loss of the principal. The Insurer's formula seeks to treat the income, expenses, and ceasing expenses of the company as those of the disabled principal, but makes little allowance for a disabled company which may be unable to generate sufficient revenues to cover the remainder of its continuing, and oft-times increased, expenses.

The formula proposed by the Insurer necessarily expands and manipulates the wording of sections 12 and 15 of the Schedule in an effort to produce, in the words of the Insurer's accountant, Mr. McCully, "an overall fair result". I am not convinced that the formula proposed by the Insurer more accurately captures the specific realities of the Applicant's circumstances than the straightforward, plain reading, approach advocated on behalf of the Applicant. Each approach raises problems. The Applicant's proposal to base his weekly income benefit upon the salary paid to him by Piper Electric ignores the reality that his pre-accident salary was not based upon the actual income, over expenses, generated by the company during the 52 weeks preceding the accident, but was maintained at an artificially higher level through the retained earnings of the company.

Counsel for the Insurer submitted that section 12 of the Schedule refers to income only, and that the portion of the Applicant's income that was augmented by Piper Electric's retained earnings should be excluded from the calculation when determining the Applicant's gross weekly income under section 12. I accept that the retained earnings of Piper Electric are in the nature of capital and do not reflect current income earned by the company in the 52 weeks preceding the accident. However, the Insurer's approach fails to recognize the specific intention of the Applicant and his son to average their incomes over the long term by leaving, within the company, income earned by them in earlier more profitable periods, to be paid out to them as salary during less profitable times. Furthermore, the Insurer's formula assigned no value to the extra unpaid work and the lower than market rate for services, given to Piper Electric by the Applicant's son.

I am aware that the Applicant, as controlling shareholder of a closely-held company could simply arrange for Piper Electric to continue to subsidize his post-accident income, from retained earnings, in the same manner as before the accident. However, I have concluded that the long-term arrangements of Piper Electric were intended to subsidize the Applicant's salary through recessionary periods only, and were not intended to carry the Applicant through periods of disability occasioned by a motor vehicle accident. The expectations of the Applicant, his son and the company, while building Piper Electric's retained earnings, were that the Applicant's skill and experience would continue to be available to meet any increased demand for the company's services and to maximize Piper Electric's economic opportunities in the event of any upswing in the economy. I find that during the period the Applicant is unable to contribute his skills and experience to Piper Electric due to his injuries, the Insurer, rather than the company, should bear the responsibility for maintaining the Applicant's salary at its pre-accident level (subject to the maximums set out in the policy).

Given the facts of this case, I conclude that the corporate structure and long-standing salary arrangements of the Applicant more fairly reflect his financial circumstances than do the assumptions and calculations of the Insurer. I find that the Applicant's weekly salary of $600 was a real salary, regular, constant and reasonable, within the context of the company's overall history. The amount of bonus paid by Piper Electric to the Applicant varied from year to year, but was regularly paid prior to Christmas. Piper Electric routinely characterized these payments as salary rather than shareholder dividend, and the Applicant included the bonuses as employment income when calculating his personal income tax return. The sum of these amounts exceeds the $600 weekly maximum payable under the Schedule. On the totality of the evidence, I find no compelling reason to set aside the consistent and long-standing financial and corporate arrangements of the Applicant in favour of the Insurer's approach.

I conclude that the quantum of weekly income benefit the Applicant is entitled to receive is $600, calculated on the basis of his pre-accident salary from employment. As such, there is no requirement to calculate or deduct "business expenses which cease" under section 12(7)3 of the No-Fault Benefits Schedule. The evidence established that Piper Electric continued to operate at a loss and has issued no further salary or other remuneration to the Applicant. I conclude that there is no necessity to deduct post-accident income, under section 15.

Expenses:

The Applicant claims his expenses in the arbitration. An award for expenses may be made under section 282(11) of the Insurance Act. The prescribed expenses and amounts are set out in Schedule 1 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code and in Ontario Regulation 664 (R.R.O. 1990), Dispute Resolution Expenses.

The present case underscores several of the difficulties and ambiguities which arise when attempting to calculate pre and post- accident income for the purpose of determining the amount of benefit payable under sections 12 and 15 of the Schedule.

Previous cases before the Commission, such as Moxon (supra) and Peter Bonitatibus and Wellington Insurance Company (Commission File No. A-000082(no. 2), April 8, 1993) have adopted very different approaches.

The issues raised by this case are both difficult and important. This is an appropriate case for the exercise of my discretion to award the Applicant expenses incurred in respect of this arbitration.

Order

1. The quantum of weekly income benefit that the Applicant is entitled to receive is $600, calculated on the basis of his pre-accident salary from employment. There is no deduction of "business expenses which cease" under section 12(7)3 of the No-Fault Benefits Schedule. There is no deduction under section 15 of the Schedule of post-accident income earned by Piper Electric Company Limited.

2. The Applicant is entitled to interest on any overdue amounts under section 24(4) of the No-Fault Benefits Schedule.

3. The Applicant is entitled to payment of his expenses incurred in respect of the hearing under section 282(11) of the Insurance Act.

December 6, 1993

Janice Mackintosh Arbitrator

Date

APPENDIX A

Documents before the arbitrator

Report of Mediator, dated October 27, 1992

Application for Appointment of an Arbitrator, dated November 2, 1992

Response by Insurer, dated December 1, 1992

Pre-hearing letter dated March 4, 1993

Exhibits:

Exhibit 1

1989-1992 T4 Slips, prepared for Thomas Piper

Exhibit 2

Copy of pages from a Journal recording amounts paid to Thomas Piper Sr. by Piper Electric 1991/92

Exhibit 3

Bundle of cheques - January 3, 1991 to March 19, 1992 paid through Piper Electric

Exhibit 4

Report of Atherton & Atherton, chartered accountants, dated May 7, 1992, plus appendices

Exhibit 5

Corporation Income Tax Returns for 1992 for Piper Electric Company Limited, plus schedules

Exhibit 6

Report of McCully, Baghel, claims consultants, dated May 3, 1993, plus Appendices A, B1, B2, C and Schedule 1

Exhibit 7

Copy of pages from a Journal recording amounts paid to Thomas Piper Jr. by Piper Electric 1992/93 Exhibit 8T4 Employment Income Analysis for Thomas Piper Sr., prepared by Mr. Atherton.

Materials referred to by the Applicant:

Shepley v. Royal Insurance Co. [1985] I.L.R. p.7225

Interpretation Act, R.S.O. 1990, as amended

Materials referred to by the Insurer:

Ashcroft v. Curtin (no cite provided)

Korenicky v. Arrow Leasing Ltd. et al., [1972] 3 O.R. p.281

APPENDIX B

Section 12

(1) The insurer will pay with respect to each insured person who sustains physical, psychological or mental injury as a result of an accident a weekly income benefit during the period in which the insured person suffers substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his or her occupation or employment if the insured person meets the qualifications set out in subsection (2) or (3).

(2) The following qualifications apply to an insured person who claims a weekly benefit under subsection (1):

1. He or she must have been at the time of the accident,

i. employed or self-employed,

ii. on a temporary lay-off, or

iii. entitled to start work within one year under a legitimate offer of employment made before the accident and evidenced in writing.

2. He or she as a result of and within two years of the accident must have suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his or her occupation or employment.

(4) Subject to subsection (5), the weekly benefit under subsection (1) will be the lesser of,

(a) $600 plus, if Optional Benefit 2 has been purchased, the amount of the benefit chosen; and

(b) 80 per cent of the insured person's gross weekly income from his or her occupation or employment, less any payments for loss of income, except Unemployment Insurance benefits,

(i) received by or available to the insured person under the laws of any jurisdiction or under any income continuation benefit plan, or

(ii) received under any sick leave plan.

(7) The following rules apply to the calculation of gross weekly income:

1. A person's gross weekly income shall be deemed to be the greatest of,

i. his or her average gross weekly income from his or her occupation or employment for the four weeks preceding the accident,

ii. his or her average gross weekly income from his or her occupation or employment for the fifty-two weeks preceding the accident,

iii. $232.

2. When a person becomes qualified to receive an income benefit under subparagraph iii of paragraph 1 of subsection (2), the person's gross weekly income shall be deemed to be the greatest of,

i. if the person was qualified under either subparagraph i or ii of paragraph 1 of subsection (2), his or her gross weekly income as determined under paragraph 1,

ii. the gross weekly income payable under the contract of employment,

iii. $232.

3. Business expenses which cease as a result of the accident shall be deducted from a person's income from self-employment before calculating his or her gross weekly income.

Section 15

The insurer may deduct from any benefit payable under this Part 80 per cent of any income received or available from any occupation or employment subsequent to the accident.