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 »

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 »

Maxi Maid Services (1998) Ltd. v. R. - TCC: No CPP withholdings for CPP pensioner

Mar 10, 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: This decision is an early frontrunner for most ridiculous CRA position of 2016. Dora Eytcheson is a home cleaner in her seventies. Her husband died in 2002 and she has received a CPP survivor pension since then. For a number of years she worked for Maxi Maid services which withheld CPP from her salary. In 2009 she turned 65 and applied for her own CPP pension. Shortly thereafter she started receiving a higher monthly cheque which she assumed was a combination of her survivor pension and her own pension. In 2011 she noticed that CPP was still being withheld from her salary so she filed two elections in form CPT30 “Election to Stop Contributing to the Canada Pension Plan or the Revocation of a Prior Election” with CRA and gave a copy to Maxi Maid. Maxi Maid stopped withholding but then in 2013 CRA assessed them for failure to withhold CPP:
Maxi Maid Services (1998) Ltd. v. R. - TCC: No CPP withholdings for CPP pensionerREAD MORE »

Wholistic Child and Family Services v. R. - TCC: Child and Youth Care worker subject to EI/CPP

Feb 29, 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: Hyacinth Dunkley was a professional Child and Youth Care worker who was placed by Wholistic with its clients. The question before the Court was whether she was subject to CPP and EI. The Court found that for CPP purposes her position was analogous to employment and for EI purposes she functioned under the direction and control of clients of Wholistic. Accordingly the appeals were both dismissed.
Wholistic Child and Family Services v. R. - TCC: Child and Youth Care worker subject to EI/CPPREAD MORE »

Big Bird Trucking Inc. v. R. - TCC: Truck drivers were independent contractors

Jan 20, 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: The taxpayer appealed a finding that truck drivers hired by it were employees. The Court examined the well known factors in EI/CPP cases and concluded that, on balance, the drivers were self-employed.
Big Bird Trucking Inc. v. R. - TCC: Truck drivers were independent contractorsREAD MORE »

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 »

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 »

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 »

Adhar v. R. - TCC: Painter was an independent contractor for CPP and EI purposes

Jul 16, 2015 By Bill Innes

Précis: Mark Ahern worked for Mr. Adhar (operating as Peacock Painting) for 16 years prior to the termination of the relationship in 2012. The Minister determined that at the date of the termination Mr. Ahern was engaged in pensionable and insurable employment. Mr. Adhar appealed to the Tax Court.
Adhar v. R. - TCC: Painter was an independent contractor for CPP and EI purposesREAD MORE »

Recent Posts

Archives