http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/110347/index.do
Habiba v. M.N.R. (June 23, 2015 – 2015 TCC 159, Lafleur J.).
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. The Crown claimed that she never worked at the restaurant at all and was simply collecting her husband’s pay cheques.
The Tax Court agreed and dismissed Ms. Habiba’s appeal.
Decision: This case was not a difficult one for the Court. It listed 11 different factors that led it to conclude that Ms. Habiba’s evidence that she worked at the restaurant (which is not named in the decision) was simply not credible. (One such factor being that between 1993 and 2014 she never reported any employment income other than from her alleged stint working at the restaurant in 2010.) The Court concluded:
[62] In view of all this, it is my opinion that the appellant did not perform work at the restaurant during the period in question. Since I have concluded that the appellant did not perform work at the restaurant, the two other criteria for determining whether a contract of employment exists, remuneration and control, will not be considered. Since there was no contract of employment (or contract of service) between the appellant and the payer during the period in question, the appellant was not engaged in insurable employment with the payer during the period in question.
[63] For all these reasons, the decision of the Minister is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed.