Date: 19980430
Docket: 97-1193-UI
BETWEEN:
CHECKMATE CABS LIMITED,
Appellant,
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent
and
JENNIFER SANTO,
Intervener.
Reasons for Judgment
Beaubier, J.T.C.C.
[1] This appeal was heard at Kelowna, British Columbia on
April 20, 1998. The Appellant called Lloyd Zudel, its president;
Paul Bulmer, a driver; and Ken Lowry, an owner, as
witnesses. The Respondent did not call any witnesses. The
Appellant ("C.C.") has appealed a decision dated March
20, 1997 that it "is considered to be a deemed
employer" under the Unemployment Insurance Act for
the calendar years 1995 and 1996 of "drivers" who did
not own taxicabs dispatched by the Appellant, but drove the
taxicabs.
[2] The evidence is that C.C. owns one handicap van and
dispatches twelve taxicabs owned by other individuals and
corporations in Kelowna, British Columbia and did so in 1995
and 1996. The owners operate their own taxicabs for 12 hour
shifts each day. On the alternate daily 12 hour shift, each owner
rents that taxicab to a driver for $60.00 per shift plus the tank
filled with gas at the end of that shift. It is these drivers
that are deemed to be employees of C.C.
[3] C.C.'s van is used by the owners and drivers to
service calls by handicapped customers. To do so they park their
taxicab, drive the van on the call, return the van and resume the
use of that taxicab.
[4] The owners contract with C.C. for dispatch, zoning and
other services for the price of $360 per week. All of the amounts
are 1998 figures; in 1995 and 1996, the figures were slightly
lower, but the other arrangements were identical. C.C. kept a
list of about 100 drivers who were qualified and fully licensed
to drive taxicabs for the owners. The list was compiled by C.C.
from approved applicants to drive taxicabs. However, the owners
contracted individually with each driver. Both the drivers and
owners complied in general with a set of standards ("Policy
and Procedures Manual", Exhibit R-1) created and written by
C.C. Legally, and in practice, C.C. could only enforce it with
the owners by withdrawing its dispatch contract. Legally, and in
practice, each owner dealt individually with each driver with
which that owner contracted. On the evidence, each owner
contracted with a driver for each shift. Therefore an owner
simply did not lease a taxicab to that driver and that terminated
the driver if a driver was not satisfactory.
[5] On the evidence, the drivers were not employees of C.C. or
owners under the tests described in Weibe Door Services v.
M.N.R., 87 DTC 5025. Each driver was an independent
contractor with an owner. Each driver was required to be, and
was, a G.S.T. registrant in business for himself. Each
driver's contract was with an owner, not with C.C. The
drivers merely had to comply with the rules set out in Exhibit
R-1. Those rules were enforced on a driver by each owner who
contracted with a driver. Thus the drivers were not employees of
C.C. The decision appealed from is clear. The drivers were found
to be "deemed" employees of C.C. under the
Unemployment Insurance Act. It is a question of law as to
whether that decision is correct.
[6] Subsection 17(1) of the Premium Regulations
reads:
The owner, proprietor or operator of a business or public
authority that employs a person in employment described in
paragraph 12(e) of the Unemployment Insurance
Regulations shall, for the purposes of maintaining records,
calculating insurable earnings and paying premiums under the Act
and these Regulations, be deemed to be employer of every such
person whose employment is included in insurable employment by
virtue of that paragraph.
Paragraph 12(e) of the Unemployment Insurance
Regulations reads:
Employment in any of the following employments, unless it is
excepted employment under subsection 3(2) of the Act or excepted
from insurable employment by any other provision of these
Regulations, is included in insurable employment:
...
(e) employment of a person as a driver of any taxi,
commercial bus, school bus or any other vehicle that is used by a
business or public authority for carrying passengers, where that
person is not the owner of the vehicle or the proprietor or
operator of the business or public authority;
...
[7] In Canada v. Skyline Cabs (1982) Ltd., (F.C.A.)
[1986] F.C.J. No. 335, MacGuigan J. found that the word
"employment" as used in these regulations is so
extensive as to apply to drivers who leased taxicabs under very
similar terms from Skyline Cabs (1982) Ltd. In this case the
difference is that the drivers lease from the owners. C.C. is not
an owner. It is a dispatcher. There is no privity of any kind of
contract between a driver and C.C. Rather C.C.'s contracts
are with the owners. Nonetheless C.C. is the person assessed for
premiums as a deemed employer of each driver who had a contract
with an owner.
[8] Thus, the question is whether C.C. is, in the words of
regulation 17(1), an "operator of a business ... that
employs a person in employment described in paragraph 12(e) of
the Unemployment Insurance Regulations."
[9] It is not. C.C. operates a business which contracts with
each owner. Each owner operates a business which contracts with
each driver. It may be that each owner can be deemed to employ a
driver under the decision in Skyline. However, there is no
contract of any kind between C.C. and a driver. Therefore C.C.
cannot be deemed to be an employer of any of the drivers in
question.
[10] The appeal is allowed and the decision of the Minister of
National Revenue is vacated in accordance with these reasons.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada this 30th day of April 1998.
"D.W. Beaubier"
J.T.C.C.