Employment Insurance/CPP

Drost. v. R. - TCC: Worker in home renovation business was an employee

Dec 02, 2015 By Bill Innes

Précis: This decision is essentially a textbook example of the parties intending the worker to be an independent contractor but the facts pointing strongly in the direction of an employment relationship. Mr. Drost worked for McHatten Builders Ltd. (“McHatten). McHatten did home renovations largely as a subcontractor for Kent Building Supplies. Mr. Drost was one of the workers performing the renovations for McHatten. He first applied to CRA for a ruling on his status for EI and CPP purposes.
Drost. v. R. - TCC: Worker in home renovation business was an employeeREAD MORE »

Barbeau v. R. - TCC: Cleaners placed by agency were not employees

Nov 23, 2015 By Bill Innes

Précis: The appellant operated a form of placement agency for cleaners. The Minister ruled that they were engaged in insurable employment because they operated under the control of the appellant’s clients. The Tax Court found that was not correct as a matter of fact. In the alternative the Minister argued that the cleaners were employed by the appellant. The Court permitted the Minister to make this alternative argument but ruled that the onus was on the Minister to adduce facts to support that argument.
Barbeau v. R. - TCC: Cleaners placed by agency were not employeesREAD MORE »

Symons v. R. - TCC: Daycare worker an independent contractor

Nov 19, 2015 By Bill Innes

Précis: Ms. Aguilar was a daycare worker. The sole issue before the Court was whether she was an employee. The Court concluded that she was not an employee, based largely on the evidence of mutual intention and absence of a significant degree of control.
Symons v. R. - TCC: Daycare worker an independent contractorREAD MORE »

V.Y.F. Express inc. v. R. - TCC: Family members not engaged in insurable employment

Nov 11, 2015 By Bill Innes

Précis: In this decision the Minister argued that three family members working for two family companies were engaged in insurable employment since they had “entered into substantially similar contracts of employment [as] if they had been dealing with the employer at arm’s length” (para. [6]). The Court rejected this conclusion finding that the terms of their work arrangement did not accord with comparable private sector positions.
V.Y.F. Express inc. v. R. - TCC: Family members not engaged in insurable employmentREAD MORE »

Modern Pest Control v. R. - TCC: Work by operator’s brother insurable

Nov 09, 2015 By Bill Innes

Précis: This case dealt with work performed by Jonathan Flynn for a company operated by his brother and owned by his uncle. CRA contended that the terms were not similar to arm’s length employment and, accordingly, that Mr. Flynn was not engaged in insurable employment.
Modern Pest Control v. R. - TCC: Work by operator’s brother insurableREAD MORE »

Menoudakis v. R. - TCC: Rockstar Music School instructors were employees

Nov 04, 2015 By Bill Innes

Précis: The issue in this decision was whether instructors at the Rockstar Music School and Concert Hall (“Rockstar”) were employees for EI and CPP purposes. The Court applied the familiar tests and concluded that the five individuals involved were indeed employees and dismissed the appeal of Ms. Menoudakis who, along with her husband, ran Rockstar as an unincorporated concern.
Menoudakis v. R. - TCC: Rockstar Music School instructors were employeesREAD MORE »

Quinte Children’s Homes v. R. - TCC: Child and youth worker not an employee

Nov 03, 2015 By Bill Innes

Précis: Quinte Children’s Children’s Homes Inc. placed children in foster homes and paid child and youth workers who worked with those children. The sole issue in these appeals was whether one of the workers, Ms. Fobear, was an employee for EI and CPP purposes. The Tax Court held that she was not, relying principally on the lack of evidence of control.
Quinte Children’s Homes v. R. - TCC: Child and youth worker not an employeeREAD MORE »

Habiba v. R. - TCC: Appellant did not in fact work at establishment, not entitled to EI

Oct 07, 2015 By Bill Innes

Précis: This is an odd case. The appellant’s husband worked as the head chef of a restaurant for several years. He was allegedly let go because of hard times in the business. She then claimed, with the acquiescence of the restaurant management, to have worked there part time in 2010 as a helper for long enough to permit her to claim EI, after which she was allegedly let go.
Habiba v. R. - TCC: Appellant did not in fact work at establishment, not entitled to EIREAD MORE »

Tréport Wedding and Convention Centre Ltd. v. R. - TCC: Banquet hall workers not employees

Aug 26, 2015 By Bill Innes

Précis: The appellant had in excess of 100 workers for the operation of five banquet rooms it operated in one leased banquet hall. With the exception of two workers that the appellant conceded were employees the Court held that the rest were all independent contractors since they were under little supervision and negotiated their own pay rates.
Tréport Wedding and Convention Centre Ltd. v. R. - TCC: Banquet hall workers not employeesREAD MORE »

Meunier v. R. - TCC: Workers doing demonstrations in retail stores were employees

Jul 22, 2015 By Bill Innes

Précis: This is a decision on a number of EI appeals heard on common evidence. The alleged employer, 7547978 Canada Inc., used workers to do demonstrations of product in the places of business of its various retail clients. It argued that it exercised no control over the workers and that they were therefore not engaged in insurable employment.
Meunier v. R. - TCC: Workers doing demonstrations in retail stores were employeesREAD MORE »

Archives - 2015

Archives