http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/108684/index.do
Vaillancourt v. M.N.R. (March 18, 2015 – 2015 TCC 67, Bédard, DJ.).
Précis: Dave Vaillancourt and his father, Roger, appealed a determination that they were not employees of 9158-3658 Québec Inc. Prior to the conclusion of trial Roger and the corporation abandoned their appeals since it became apparent that Roger was the owner of 9158-3658. Dave pursued his appeal but the Court rejected it, concluding that his alleged employment was simply a sham to enable him to obtain EI benefits.
Decision: The Court rejected the appeal of Dave Vaillancourt (who did not testify):
[8] In this case, Dave Vaillancourt could have testified in support of his argument. Other witnesses, for example, employees, suppliers or clients of the appellant company, could have corroborated Roger Vaillancourt’s testimony regarding his son Dave’s prestation of work. This was not done. I conclude that that evidence would not have been favourable to Dave Vaillancourt.
[9] My review of the evidence leads me to find that it is more likely than not that Dave Vaillancourt did not provide the prestation of work he alleges, and thus that the parties had organized a scheme with the sole purpose of enabling Dave Vaillancourt to become eligible for employment insurance benefits.
TAGS: Employment Insurance, Insurable Employment