http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/110354/index.do
Blain v. M.N.R. (June 24, 2015 – 2015 TCC 162, Lafleur J.).
Précis: Mr. Blain claimed to have been employed by Normand Dubois or his company, MC DOBOIS, for a few months in 2010. The Minister denied his EI claim on the basis that he was not factually engaged in insurable employment during that period. This was in part based on a statutory declaration that he had signed that did not mention employment with Mr. Dubois. Mr. Blain testified that he did not mention Mr. Dubois because he did not want any trouble since Mr. Dubois was later revealed to be involved in criminal activities. The Tax Court accepted Mr. Blain’s evidence and allowed his appeal. There was no order as to costs.
Decision: This decision boiled down to a simple question of credibility and, in particular, whether Mr. Blain could explain his failure to refer to Mr. Dubois in his earlier statutory declaration:
[8] The appellant stated that he could not fault his employer for anything. He later learned through the media that Mr. Dubois was part of a vast money‑laundering network. At the hearing, the respondent filed as Exhibit I‑4 a copy of an article from the La Presse newspaper dated February 10, 2014, describing the Dubois family’s forfeiture and the prison sentence imposed on Mr. Dubois for various criminal offences.
…
[44] I note that the evidence has shown that the agreement between the appellant and Mr. Dubois was verbal. The appellant could not call Mr. Dubois as a witness because of the particular circumstances concerning Mr. Dubois and his family and close collaborators as shown in Exhibit I-4.
[45] Based on the appellant’s evidence at the hearing, I am of the view that the appellant performed a prestation of work for MC DUBOIS or for Mr. Dubois during the period. The appellant’s testimony was clear; the appellant appeared to me to be credible, honest and frank.
[46] The appellant had to transport heavy machinery. He had to help Mr. Dubois’s son in his excavation work. He also had to ensure that the heavy machinery was in good working order. He showed the Court some photos of the machinery with the MC DUBOIS logo on it.
[47] During the hearing, the respondent described the contradictions in the statutory declaration. However, the appellant seemed sincere to me when he said that he did not want to implicate Mr. Dubois or his companies for fear of reprisals. In addition, although the appellant’s actions concerning his job in Alberta in 2007 may not have complied with the Act, I cannot infer that the appellant’s testimony at the hearing is tainted by bad faith. Accordingly, I will not use this factor in this case.
Accordingly the appeal was allowed.