http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/71457/index.do 
Parsons v. M.N.R. ( May 7, 2014 – 2014 TCC 138) was an EI appeal where the appellant, Mr. Parsons, claimed that he had been employed by Maple Leaf Oil Distributors Limited as a handyman for the period January 2, 2012 to March 9, 2012. Maple Leaf was owned by his erstwhile friend, Mr. Dawe. There was evidence that Mr. Dawe purchased a piece of property from Mr. Parsons with a convoluted payment arrangement involving both cash and the use of Mr. Dawe’s credit card by Mr. Parsons. This was followed by litigation in the Newfoundland courts over the transfer of the land. While there does not seem to have been any evidence of actual payments by Maple Leaf to Mr. Parsons there was evidence that “deductions were made in respect to his wages because he took them to the bank himself and returned the stamped bank documents to Mr. Dawe” [para. 5]. Mr. Dawe however testified that Mr. Parsons was never employed by Maple Leaf during the period in question:
Mr. Dawe’s evidence is that until January 22, 2012, the Appellant never worked for him and that he hired someone else to help him with the house that he was building. He then went on to state that the Appellant did in fact work for him for 7 to 10 days in the first part of February, 2012. He testified that this would have been insurable employment time but that it was subsequent to the period under appeal. [para. 8]
[The would appear to be some confusion of dates since February of 2012 was in the period under appeal.]
The court sifted through this confused mess of facts and concluded that Mr. Parsons had simply not met the onus of disproving the Minister’s assumptions:
[11] At the time of drafting the Reply to the Notice of Appeal, the Minister had few facts upon which to base its assumptions of fact due to the lack of participation by both parties in the appeal process. Mr. Dawe testified that he ignored requests from Canada Revenue Agency and refused to complete a questionnaire forwarded to him. In fact, he admitted that he only opened the correspondence enclosing the questionnaire earlier in the same week that the hearing was scheduled to occur. The Respondent counsel admitted in submissions that the facts in the Reply in this appeal were truly “assumptions”. Mr. Dawe was probably subpoenaed by the Respondent in the anticipation that he would assist the Court in establishing the true factual matrix that existed between these two individuals at the time. However, Mr. Dawe’s testimony simply emphasized the truly divergent and vague recall of events that occurred between them. Since I am unable to draw any conclusions from the web of stories I heard and since the evidence of neither witness was convincing, the Minister’s assumptions of fact have not been demolished. The appeal is dismissed, without costs.