Inowal Transport Ltd. v. R. - TCC: Workers not engaged in insurable employment

Feb 24, 2017 By Bill Innes

Précis: The issue was whether 4 workers were engaged in contracts of service with the appellant corporation in 2014. In the case of 2 of the workers, they were related to the appellant corporation, so there was a secondary issue of whether the agreement were substantially similar to contracts of employment that would have been entered into if they had been dealing at arm’s length with the appellant.
Inowal Transport Ltd. v. R. - TCC: Workers not engaged in insurable employmentREAD MORE »

Monjazeb v. R. - TCC: Audio engineer an employee for EI and CPP purposes

Sep 20, 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: Mr. Monjazeb was an audio engineer working for PCS Pacific Cabling Solutions Ltd. (“PCS”). Initially he clearly wanted to be an independent contractor and submitted invoices for his work on a periodic basis and charged GST. After the end of his employment with PCS he claimed to have been an employee. CRA initially sided with him but after an internal appeal concluded that he was an independent contractor. Mr. Monjazeb appealed that decision to the Tax Court.
Monjazeb v. R. - TCC: Audio engineer an employee for EI and CPP purposesREAD MORE »

Sistema Toronto Academy Inc. v. R. - TCC: Music teachers were employees for EI/CPP purposes

Sep 16, 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: The taxpayer was a non-profit organization that provided after school music education to disadvantaged students. It hired professional musicians to provide that education. This issue was whether those musicians were independent contractors or employees. Applying the well know tests of intention, control, tools, chance or profit/risk of loss and sub-delegation the Court held that the workers were engaged in pensionable and insurable employment and confirmed the Minister’s decision.
Sistema Toronto Academy Inc. v. R. - TCC: Music teachers were employees for EI/CPP purposesREAD MORE »

Stuckless v. R. - TCC: Incorporated bricklayer not engaged in insurable employment

Sep 14, 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: Mr. Stuckless was a bricklayer for 16 years. He incorporated a company of which he owned 20% of the shares and his spouse and father each owned 40% of the shares. His evidence was that he thought that the use of the corporation would allow him to claim EI benefits when necessary. CRA denied his claim for EI benefits and he appealed to the Tax Court. The Court held that he was not engaged in employment similar to arm’s length employment and dismissed his appeal. There was no order as to costs.
Stuckless v. R. - TCC: Incorporated bricklayer not engaged in insurable employmentREAD MORE »

Belzile v. R. - TCC: Taxpayer although related to employer was engaged in insurable employment

Aug 15, 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: Commencing in April of 2014 Mme Belzile began to work for a landscaping company jointly owned by her, her common-law husband and their daughter. She and the other employees were laid off in October of 2014 (presumably because the business was seasonal). The sole issue was whether the conditions of her employment were similar to those of arm’s length employment. The Tax Court held that they were similar and allowed Mme Belzile’s appeal of the Minister’s decision.
Belzile v. R. - TCC: Taxpayer although related to employer was engaged in insurable employmentREAD MORE »

Bisset v. R. - TCC: Appellant not engaged in insurable employment with her husband’s construction business

Aug 12, 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: The appellant worked as a bookkeeper for her spouse who ran a small construction business. She had no training as a bookkeeper and relied upon advice from her brother, who was an accountant. She testified that she worked 20 hours per week but had no fixed schedule; she worked from her home. After completing 600 hours (the minimum necessary to entitle her to benefits) she took maternity leave. CRA denied her claim on the basis that she was not engaged in employment similar to arm’s length employment. The Tax Court accepted that CRA’s interpretation of the facts was reasonable and dismissed the appeal.
Bisset v. R. - TCC: Appellant not engaged in insurable employment with her husband’s construction businessREAD MORE »

Apex Language and Career College v. R. - TCC: Teachers at language college were employees

May 26, 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: This decision dealt with the status of 13 teachers at a language school run by Apex Language and Career College. The 13 teachers had signed contracts indicating that they were not employees. The Tax Court reviewed the well-known factors and concluded that, notwithstanding the terms of their contracts, the teachers were all employees and therefore subject to EI and CPP. As a result the appeal of Apex was dismissed.
Apex Language and Career College v. R. - TCC: Teachers at language college were employeesREAD MORE »

Blain v. R. - TCC: Appellant was an employee for UI purposes

May 09, 2016 By Bill Innes

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...
Blain v. R. - TCC: Appellant was an employee for UI purposesREAD MORE »

Mazraani v. R. - TCC: Insurance agent was an employee engaged in insurable employment

Apr 21, 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: This case dealt with whether an insurance agent selling life, disability and health insurance on behalf of Industrial Alliance Insurance and Financial Services Inc. (“Industrial”) in the province of Québec was engaged in insurable employment for the purposes of the Employment Insurance Act (the “EIA”). CRA ruled that Mr. Mazraani was an independent contractor and he appealed to the Tax Court. The Tax Court in what is likely that longest Tax Court decision this year (and one of the longest Tax Court decisions in many years) - 304 paragraphs, 2 appendices and 292 footnotes - reversed the finding of CRA and ruled that Mr. Mazraani was engaged in insurable employment with Industrial. The Court also ordered Industrial to pay Mr. Mazraani $2,000 in costs.
Mazraani v. R. - TCC: Insurance agent was an employee engaged in insurable employmentREAD MORE »

Ilijoic v. R. - TCC: Disability payments were employment income not insurance payments

Apr 14, 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: Ms. Ilijoic received disability payments from Sun Life Assurance Company under a plan arranged by her employer, Dow Chemical Canada ULC:
Ilijoic v. R. - TCC: Disability payments were employment income not insurance paymentsREAD MORE »

Recent Posts

Archives