Date:
20021106
Docket:
2000-3683-EI,
2000-4198-EI,
2000-4917-EI,
2000-4918-EI
BETWEEN:
LES
PRODUCTIONS PETIT BONHOMME INC.,
LES
PRODUCTIONS BIBI ET ZOÉ INC.,
Appellants,
and
THE MINISTER
OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent,
and
CHRISTIAN
ODELL,
Intervener.
Reasons
for Judgment
Angers,
J.T.C.C.
[1]
These four appeals are from decisions by the Minister of National
Revenue ("the Minister") that during the years at issue
the workers for the appellant companies held insurable employment
within the meaning of the Employment Insurance Act
("the Act") because there was an
employer-employee relationship between the appellant companies
and each of the workers named in the Notices of Appeal. The
appeals were heard on common evidence.
[2]
Appeal number 2000-3683(EI) of Les Productions Petit Bonhomme
Inc. involves 44 workers for this appellant and covers the
production period from June 8 to October 9, 1998. These workers
were distributed among 11 different types of positions, each with
its own particular characteristics. There were 10 camera
operators, three sound recordists, four switchers, four unit
managers, five boom operators, two makeup artists, two prop
persons, four grips, seven electricians, three directors of
photography, and two video recorder operators. The 44 workers
concerned are as follows:
Audy,
Michel
Lampron, Sylvain
Béland,
Michel
Ledoux, Francis
Benoit,
Claude
Leduc, Benoit
Blanchard,
Claude
Lévesque, Alain
Blanchette,
François
McCraw, Kim
Bonneville,
Marcel
McLaughlin, Sylvie
Bourassa,
Mario
Martineau, Serge
Brien,
Mathieu
Meunier, Claude
Charron,
Martin
Migneault (Mignot), Julie
Chartrand,
Jacques
Moisan, Hélène
Cornescu,
Horia
Nicolas, Michel
Desmarais,
Richard
Pérusse, Gabriel
Dion,
Joane
Pilon, Martin
Doré,
Daniel
Proulx, Eddy
Dufour,
André
Provencher, Marc
Forget,
Normand
Rhéaume, Bruno
Gadoua,
Pierre
St-Jean, Daniel
Hébert,
Denis
Tanguay, François
Hudon,
Julie
Tessier, Jenny
Jacob,
Lyne
Vachon, Jean-Pierre
Laliberté,
Guy
Vanier, Luc
Lamontagne,
René
Vanier, Pierre
[3]
In reaching his decision in this case, the Minister relied in
particular on the following assumptions of fact, of which the
appellant company either admitted or denied the truth:
[TRANSLATION]
(a)
The appellant is a company that produces children's
television programs. (admitted)
(b)
Mr. Paul Cadieux was the sole shareholder of Megaphone Inc.,
which is the owner of the appellant company.
(admitted)
(c)
In 1998, the appellant produced, among other things, a television
series entitled "Papi Bonheur" that was broadcast on
TFO-TVO, Ontario's educational channel. (denied)
(d)
In order to complete that production contract of
fifty-two 26-minute episodes, the appellant
hired a total of 45 workers for 11 different types of
positions. (denied)
(e)
Each worker hired by the appellant signed a hiring contract
provided in the collective agreement concluded among the
Association des producteurs de films et de
télévision du Québec (APFTQ), the
Association québécoise de l'industrie du
disque, du spectacle et de la vidéo (ADISQ), and the
Association des professionnel-le-s de la vidéo du
Québec (APVQ). (admitted with regard to this appeal only)
(f)
The production period for the "Papi Bonheur" series
extended from June 8 to October 9, 1998 and included
52 days of filming. (admitted)
(g)
The workers were hired according to filming requirements, and
depending on their availability; they would not necessarily work
every day. (admitted)
(h)
Filming an episode of "Papi Bonheur" required the
participation of 15 workers occupying, and performing the
duties of, the following 11 positions: camera operators (3),
electricians (2), director of photography, prop person, makeup
artist, unit manager, grips (2), sound recordist, switcher, boom
operator, and video recorder operator. (admitted)
(i)
The series was filmed in studios rented by the appellant in Ville
LaSalle. (admitted)
(j)
The workers were to report for work at the times set by the
appellant's production manager. (denied)
(k)
The day's work was supervised and planned by the director
designated by the appellant. (denied)
(l)
The workers had to complete and submit time sheets provided by
the APVQ, indicating the hours actually worked.
(denied)
(m)
Each worker was paid by the hour under an agreement previously
reached between the parties. (denied)
(n)
The appellant provided the location for the filming and most of
the equipment required to film the series. (denied)
[4]
The assumptions of fact concerning each type of position are
similar in the four appeal cases and will be reproduced in the
analysis of these various positions.
[5]
Appeal number 2000-4198(EI) of Les Productions Bibi et Zoé
Inc. involves 25 workers for this appellant and covers the
production period from October 16, 1998 to March 5, 1999.
The workers were distributed among eight types of positions
similar to those at issue in the preceding appeal case. There
were four camera operators, one sound recordist, five switchers,
two unit managers, two boom operators, three grips, six
electricians, and two directors of photography. The
25 workers concerned are as follows:
Ally,
Richard
Audy,
Michel
Boyard,
Stephen
Benoit,
Claude
Boisvert,
Luc
Bourassa,
Mario
Brien,
Mathieu
Chartrand,
Jacques
Giroux,
Rémi
Janson,
Stéphane
Kasparian,
Berge
Lamontagne, René
Lavallée, Martin
Ledoux,
Francis
Liboiron,
Benoit
Maher,
Michel
Prince,
Marcel
Rouleau,
Claude
Roy,
Hugo
St-Cyr,
Pierre
Tessier,
Éric
Tremblay,
Sébastien
Vachon,
Jean-Pierre
Vanier,
Luc
Vanier,
Pierre
[6]
In reaching his decision in this case, the Minister relied in
particular on the following assumptions of fact, and with one
exception, the appellant company either admitted or denied the
truth of each:
[TRANSLATION]
(a)
The appellant is a filmmaking company that specializes in
producing children's television programs.
(admitted)
(b)
Mr. Paul Cadieux was the sole shareholder of Megaphone Inc.,
which was the owner of the appellant company.
(admitted)
(c)
In 1998-99, the appellant produced, among other things, a
television series entitled "Bibi et Zoé" that
was broadcast on TFO-TVO, Ontario's educational channel.
(denied)
(d)
In order to complete that production contract of
twenty-six 26-minute episodes, the appellant
hired a total of 58 workers for 10 different types of
positions. (denied)
(e)
The workers hired by the appellant signed a hiring contract
provided in the collective agreement concluded among the
Association des producteurs de films et de
télévision du Québec (APFTQ), the
Association québécoise de l'industrie du
disque, du spectacle et de la vidéo (ADISQ), and the
Association des professionnel-le-s de la vidéo du
Québec (APVQ). (denied)
(f)
The production period for "Bibi et Zoé" extended
from October 16, 1998 to March 5, 1999 and included 24 days
of filming. (admitted)
(g)
The workers were hired according to filming requirements, and
depending on their availability; they would not necessarily work
every day. (admitted)
(h)
Filming an episode of "Bibi et Zoé" required the
participation of 13 workers occupying, and performing the duties
of, the following 10 positions: camera operators (2),
electricians (2), director of photography, prop person, makeup
artist, unit manager, grips (2), sound recordist, switcher, and
boom operator. (admitted)
(i)
The series was filmed in studios rented by the appellant in Ville
LaSalle. (admitted)
(j)
The workers were to report for work at the times set by the
appellant's production manager. (denied)
(k)
The day's work was supervised and planned by the director
designated by the appellant. (denied)
(l)
The workers had to complete and submit time sheets provided by
the APVQ, indicating the hours actually worked.
(denied)
(m)
Each worker was paid by the hour under an agreement previously
reached between the parties. (denied)
(n)
The appellant provided the location for the filming and most of
the equipment required to film the series. (denied)
(o)
The appellant was required to contribute to the APVQ's group
RRSP and group insurance. (denied)
(y)
The appellant had the right to control the work of all the
workers hired to produce the programs. (denied)
(z)
In the event that the broadcaster refused to air the series, the
appellant would be solely responsible for refilming at its
expense; the workers would be paid again in this eventuality.
(argument)
(aa) In
addition to paying the workers, the appellant contributed to the
workers' group RRSP and group insurance.
(admitted)
[7]
Appeal number 2000-4917(EI) of Les Productions Bibi et Zoé
Inc. involves 20 workers for this appellant and covers the
production period from October 16, 1998 to March 5, 1999. The
workers were distributed among nine types of positions similar to
those at issue in the two above-noted appeal cases. There were
four camera operators, one sound recordist, three unit managers,
one boom operator, one makeup artist, one hairstylist, one prop
person, five grips, and three electricians. The 20 workers
concerned are as follows:
Clément, Éric
Cornescu,
Horia
Côté, Manon
De
Gagné, Michel
Desgranges, Bruno
Desmarais,
Richard
Gauthier,
Pierre
Gervais,
Gaétan
Lampron,
Sylvain
Leblanc,
Thierry
Meunier,
Claude
Migneault,
Julie
Moisan,
Hélène
Parent,
Sylvie
Pérusse, Gabriel
Pilon,
Martin
Provencher, Marc
Robitaille, René
Roy,
Stéphane
Villeneuve, Michel
[8]
In reaching his decision in this case, the Minister relied on
assumptions of fact similar to those in appeal number
2000-4198(EI), which are reproduced above.
[9]
The last appeal case, namely appeal number 2000-4918(EI) of Les
Productions Bibi et Zoé Inc., involves 23 workers and
covers the production period from October 16, 1998 to
March 5, 1999. At issue are eight types of positions, which were
occupied as follows: one camera operator, one makeup artist, one
costume designer, two prop persons, one electrician, one sound
mixer, one set designer, and five picture editors. The 23 workers
concerned are as follows:
Barro,
Jonathan
Bergeron,
Charles
Daneau,
Marc
Dumas,
Patrick
Ellis,
Anthony
Fortin,
Marcellin
Gagnon,
Jean
Gratton,
Paul
Lefebvre,
Robert
Lord,
Jean-François
Morin,
Richard
Odell,
Christian
Proulx,
Eddy
Raby,
Colombe
Rhéaume, Bruno
Rhéaume, Éric
Rhéaume, Pierre
Rivard,
Pierre
Rousseau,
Jean-François
St-Denis,
Anne
Tapp,
Annie
Thibault,
Louise
Valiquette,
Michel
[10] The
appellant company considered some of these workers to be
"off-set" workers. Their duties are described by the
respondent in the Reply to the Notice of Appeal; these
descriptions will be reproduced below.
[11] With
respect to the workers Christian Odell,
Éric Rhéaume, Pierre Rivard,
Jean-François Rousseau, Pierre Rhéaume,
Paul Gratton and Jean Gagnon, the respondent has agreed that
the Court shall declare them self-employed workers. I therefore
issue an order so declaring. As regards the worker Robert
Lefebvre, at the hearing the appellant company informed the Court
that it was discontinuing the proceeding insofar as it concerned
him.
[12] The
parties chose to convert the positions at issue into
representative cases in order to minimize the number of persons
testifying. In fact, one or more workers testified concerning
each of these representative cases. The representative cases on
which the parties agreed are as follows: prop person, switcher,
camera operator, costume designer/dresser, head set designer,
director of photography, electrician, grip/set constructor, grip,
makeup artist, sound mixer, on-line editor, video recorder
operator, boom operator, sound recordist, unit manager, and
miscellaneous.
[13] Each of
the workers concerned in the four appeals is included in one of
these representative cases. The list of the workers in question
is reproduced in Exhibit I-2, Tabs 1 and 15. For each
worker, this list indicates the position (representative case)
held and the appeal docket number.
[14] The
parties have agreed that this Court's decision in the case of
worker Gabriel Pérusse would apply to the case of worker
Michel Audy, since both these workers were classified in the
grip/set constructor category in the representative cases. With
respect to the grips, the parties agreed that the testimony of
Sylvain Lampron and Mr. Pérusse (except for the part
of the latter's testimony that concerned his duties as a set
constructor) would be taken as representative of the work carried
out by the other grips, namely, Marcellin Fortin, Pierre
Gauthier, René Robitaille and Michel Villeneuve. As well,
the parties agreed that Richard Morin was a prop person, just
like Anne St-Denis and Hélène Moisan. Christian
Odell, the intervener in appeal number 2000-4918(EI), testified
at the hearing; in the context of the representative cases, he is
in the "miscellaneous" category.
[15] At issue
in these four appeals is whether the 92 workers included in
the representative cases held with the appellant companies
employment that was insurable within the meaning of
paragraph 5(1)(a) of the Act. Were they hired
under a contract of service or a contract for
services?
[16] The onus
is on the appellants to establish on a balance of probabilities
that these workers were hired under contracts for services, not
contracts of service.
The
law
[17] The
procedure I must follow in determining whether the contracts
signed between the appellant companies and the workers were
contracts of service or contracts for services is clearly set out
by the Federal Court of Appeal in Wiebe Door Services Ltd. v.
M.N.R., [1986] 3 F.C. 553, 87 DTC 5025. In this decision,
MacGuigan J. analyses the case law as well as the four tests
enunciated by Lord Wright in Montreal v. Montreal Locomotive
Works Ltd., [1947] 1 D.L.R. 161, concluding as follows at
page 560 (DTC, page 5028):
Taken thus in
context, Lord Wright's fourfold test is a general, indeed an
overarching test, which involves "examining the whole of the
various elements which constitute the relationship between the
parties." In his own use of the test to determine the
character of the relationship in the Montreal Locomotive
Works case itself, Lord Wright combines and integrates the
four tests in order to seek out the meaning of the whole
transaction.
[18] MacGuigan
J. continues as follows at page 562 (DTC, page 5029):
. . .
I interpret Lord Wright's test not
as the fourfold one it is often described as being but rather as
a four-in-one test, with emphasis always retained on what Lord
Wright, supra, calls "the combined force of the whole
scheme of operations," even while the usefulness of the four
subordinate criteria is acknowledged.
[19] At page
563 (DTC, page 5030), MacGuigan J. adds:
What must always
remain of the essence is the search for the total relationship of
the parties. Atiyah's counsel in this respect, supra,
at page 38, is, I believe, of great value:
[I]t is exceedingly
doubtful whether the search for a formula in the nature of a
single test for identifying a contract of service any longer
serves a useful purpose . . . . The most that can profitably be
done is to examine all the possible factors which have been
referred to in these cases as bearing on the nature of the
relationship between the parties concerned. Clearly not all of
these factors will be relevant in all cases, or have the same
weight in all cases. Equally clearly no magic formula can be
propounded for determining which factors should, in any given
case, be treated as the determining ones. The plain fact is that
in a large number of cases the court can only perform a balancing
operation, weighing up the factors which point in one direction
and balancing them against those pointing in the opposite
direction. In the nature of things it is not to be expected that
this operation can be performed with scientific
accuracy.
[20]
Essentially, the tests to which the Federal Court of Appeal
refers and which must be considered along with the evidence as a
whole are as follows:
(1)
the degree, or the absence, of control exercised by the alleged
employer;
(2)
ownership of the tools;
(3)
chance of profit;
(4)
risk of loss; and
(5)
integration.
[21] Lastly, at
page 564 (DTC, page 5030) MacGuigan J. reproduces
certain comments by Cooke J. concerning the approach to be
taken:
Perhaps the best
synthesis found in the authorities is that of Cooke J. in
Market Investigations, Ltd. v. Minister of Social
Security, [1968] 3 All E.R. 732 (Q.B.D.), at pages
737-738:
The observations of
LORD WRIGHT, of DENNING, L.J., and of the judges of the Supreme
Court in the U.S.A. suggest that the fundamental test to be
applied is this: "Is the person who has engaged himself to
perform these services performing them as a person in business on
his own account?". If the answer to that question is
"yes", then the contract is a contract for services. If
the answer is "no" then the contract is a contract of
service. No exhaustive list has been compiled and perhaps no
exhaustive list can be compiled of considerations which are
relevant in determining that question, nor can strict rules be
laid down as to the relative weight which the various
considerations should carry in particular cases. The most that
can be said is that control will no doubt always have to be
considered, although it can no longer be regarded as the sole
determining factor; and that factors, which may be of importance,
are such matters as whether the man performing the services
provides his own equipment, whether he hires his own helpers,
what degree of financial risk he takes, what degree of
responsibility for investment and management he has, and whether
and how far he has an opportunity of profiting from sound
management in the performance of his task. The application of the
general test may be easier in a case where the person who engages
himself to perform the services does so in the course of an
already established business of his own; but this factor is not
decisive, and a person who engages himself to perform services
for another may well be an independent contractor even though he
has not entered into the contract in the course of an existing
business carried on by him.
[22] This
approach was endorsed by the Supreme Court of Canada in 671122
Ontario Ltd. v. Sagaz Industries Canada Inc., [2001]
SCC 59. In that decision, the Supreme Court reviews all the
principles set out in Wiebe Door and elsewhere, and
ultimately makes the following clarifications, at
paragraphs 46, 47 and 48:
46 In my opinion,
there is no one conclusive test which can be universally applied
to determine whether a person is an employee or an independent
contractor. Lord Denning stated in Stevenson Jordan,
supra, that it may be impossible to give a precise
definition of the distinction (p. 111) and, similarly, Fleming
observed that "no single test seems to yield an invariably
clear and acceptable answer to the many variables of ever
changing employment relations . . ." (p. 416). Further, I
agree with MacGuigan J.A. in Wiebe Door, at p. 563, citing
Atiyah, supra, at p. 38, that what must always occur is a
search for the total relationship of the parties:
[I]t is exceedingly
doubtful whether the search for a formula in the nature of a
single test for identifying a contract of service any longer
serves a useful purpose. . . . The most that can profitably be
done is to examine all the possible factors which have been
referred to in these cases as bearing on the nature of the
relationship between the parties concerned. Clearly not all of
these factors will be relevant in all cases, or have the same
weight in all cases. Equally clearly no magic formula can be
propounded for determining which factors should, in any given
case, be treated as the determining ones.
47 Although there is
no universal test to determine whether a person is an employee or
an independent contractor, I agree with MacGuigan J.A. that a
persuasive approach to the issue is that taken by Cooke J. in
Market Investigations, supra. The central question
is whether the person who has been engaged to perform the
services is performing them as a person in business on his own
account. In making this determination, the level of control the
employer has over the worker's activities will always be a
factor. However, other factors to consider include whether the
worker provides his or her own equipment, whether the worker
hires his or her own helpers, the degree of financial risk taken
by the worker, the degree of responsibility for investment and
management held by the worker, and the worker's opportunity
for profit in the performance of his or her tasks.
48 It bears repeating
that the above factors constitute a non-exhaustive list, and
there is no set formula as to their application. The relative
weight of each will depend on the particular facts and
circumstances of the case.
[23] I have
also read the case law submitted by counsel, particularly the
cases that are most like the situation here. We must analyse this
case law along with the evidence as a whole in order to determine
the nature of the total relationship between the appellant
companies and the workers.
Facts
[24] The
appellants are production companies that specialize in producing
children's television programs. During the years at issue,
they produced two television series entitled
"Papi Bonheur" and "Bibi et Zoé".
The first series was made up of fifty-two 26-minute
episodes, and the second consisted of
twenty-six 26-minute episodes. Both programs
were broadcast by TFO-TVO. Series of this type are produced
either following a broadcaster's making a request and at the
same time suggesting certain parameters, or as a result of an
idea submitted by a producer to a broadcaster.
[25] In the
present cases, TFO-TVO was seeking children's programs. The
appellant companies therefore submitted proposals and eventually
reached an agreement with TFO-TVO to produce the programs in
question. Once the initial scripts are written, the appellants
must choose a production manager, a production
co-ordinator, a director, and an assistant director. At the
same time, the scripts are sent to certain tradespeople who work
during what is called the pre-production stage. Here, those
tradespeople were set designers, puppet makers, prop persons, and
costume designers. Steps are also taken to reserve a studio for
filming and a casting director is hired to find actors for the
various roles.
[26] The
selected actors' names are submitted to the broadcaster for
approval. Once this approval has been received, the appellant
companies conduct a series of auditions and then submit their
final choices to the broadcaster for approval. The filming dates
depend on the actors' availability. As soon as the filming
dates have been set, the production manager and the production
co-ordinator bring together the people they will need for
production purposes (some will not be available, and others will
be replaced). These persons' hourly rates are then negotiated
and they sign their contracts on the first day of
filming.
[27] Without
going here into the details of each participant's role in the
filming of this type of production (I shall do so later), suffice
it to say for the moment that the scripts are distributed two
weeks in advance to the actors, costume designers, unit managers,
director and prop persons. Once the sets are up and the lighting
installed, the director explains the day's action to all the
participants. The director explains how the scene will unfold and
tells the camera operator what is wanted. The director is seated
near the switcher, who switches camera images. All the
participants communicate among themselves using an intercom
system. In constant communication with one another, they go about
their work, making any necessary adjustments before each final
take. At the end of all this, there is the post-production stage,
which consists of editing the finished product to be presented to
the broadcaster.
[28] Hiring is
done on the basis of confidence. According to Paul Cadieux, agent
for the appellant companies in these cases, one hires those whom
one knows. People are informed of the filming dates and their
availability is noted. The production manager or the production
co-ordinator is responsible for contacting people. According to
Mr. Cadieux, although there are standard rates, sometimes
certain persons are paid more. He explained that the Association des producteurs de films
et de télévision du Québec (APFTQ), the
Association québécoise de l'industrie du
disque, du spectacle et de la vidéo (ADISQ), and the
Association des professionnel-le-s de la vidéo du
Québec (APVQ) have a collective agreement that was in
effect during the years at issue (Exhibit I-2,
Tab 4). Clause 1.04 of this collective agreement explains that
the purpose of the agreement is to establish minimum working
conditions for technicians in any of the positions listed in
clause 1.02, to foster good relations between the parties,
and to set up a dispute settlement process. The positions listed
included the representative cases identified in these appeals,
although some of the workers named in these appeals are not APVQ
members.
[29] The
collective agreement provides for a hiring contract; this is the
contract that was signed between the appellant companies and the
workers who were APVQ members. Each contract was adduced in
evidence in these appeals and neither party alleged that these
contracts were not adhered to. It should be noted that, in
certain cases, conditions better than the minimum conditions were
granted, higher hourly rates being one example. According to
Mr. Cadieux, under the heading [TRANSLATION]
"replacement conditions" in the contracts was written
[TRANSLATION] "mutual understanding", and this was done
as a courtesy to the workers. Other clauses of the collective
agreement have to do with dismissal, contract cancellation, hours
of work, pay rates, statutory holidays, living expenses and
travel. Provision is also made for penalties payable by the party
cancelling the hiring contract in the circumstances described in
the collective agreement.
[30] The
production manager is responsible for logistics. In fact, this
person does everything possible to ensure that, at the end of the
process, the production company has a cassette to present to the
broadcaster. The production manager makes sure that the
technicians have everything they need to do their jobs, and that
the required equipment is in the right place at the right time.
In the case of the productions involved here, the production
manager hired the technicians and discussed their availability
and their wages with them. The technicians are all freelances;
often the same technicians are hired again. They were obliged to
abide by the collective agreement. According to the assistant
director, the production schedule was designed to improve filming
efficiency and avoid needless moving of sets.
[31] The
production co-ordinator is the link between certain technicians
and the director. When the director clarifies or changes
something, the production co-ordinator informs the workers
concerned. Another part of the co-ordinator's job is to
ensure that everyone is present. In the case of one of the
productions in question here, it was the production co-ordinator
who completed the time sheets. Sometimes the exact time was
unimportant because the collective agreement provided for a
guaranteed minimum of 10 hours per working day, even if a person
actually worked fewer hours.
[32] During a
production, it is the director who directs the activities as a
whole. The director encourages everyone's participation
because, according to Claude Blanchard, all the participants
are professionals, friends, and reliable persons who know what
they are doing. That said, Mr. Blanchard acknowledged that,
if there is a problem to be solved, it is the director who must
ultimately make a decision. The director has overall
responsibility, and synchronizes shooting and filming. According
to Mr. Blanchard, the two organization charts adduced in
evidence are unrealistic. He considers all participants equals
since it is important that everyone talk to each other. He
maintained that a spider web would better represent what actually
happens. He sees himself as pulling things together so that the
finished product is acceptable. He also recognizes that he must
settle certain issues if necessary. When all is said and done, he
intervenes throughout the process, from beginning to
end.
[33] Paul
Lauzon is a labour relations advisor for the APVQ. He explained
that the APVQ sees to it that the collective agreement is
respected and stated that its mandate is to bring together
television technicians and artists. A copy of the application for
certification submitted by the APVQ to the Canadian Artists and
Producers Professional Relations Tribunal was adduced as
Exhibit I-2, Tab 11. That document specified that the
APVQ was applying for certification to represent a sector
including all independent professional contractors in Quebec
hired by producers. The application for certification described
lastly the positions involved, which include the representative
cases identified herein. Although the application for
certification referred to independent contractors,
Mr. Lauzon stated that 90 per cent of the persons concerned
are employees for whom source deductions are made, as provided in
clause 14.04 of the collective agreement. Under
cross-examination, Mr. Lauzon acknowledged that some members
were considered to be self-employed and that no source deductions
were made in their case.
[34] I consider
the collective agreement a factor to be taken into account in
analysing the nature of the total relationship between the
workers and the employers. It is clear, however, that although
the APVQ is certified to represent only self-employed workers,
some of these workers are treated as employees by the producers.
The principle underlying provincial and federal legislation on
the status of artists and of all persons working for producers is
that these workers, who are deemed to be self-employed, must be
given the power to bargain collectively. However, the evidence
has clearly established that not all workers included in the
representative cases are treated as being self-employed. Still,
artists are defined as persons who practise their art on a
self-employed basis and offer their services for pay as creators
or performers.
[35] The
parties adduced as evidence the decision made by Quebec's
Ministère du revenu under the Act respecting the Quebec
Pension Plan (R.S.Q., c. R-9), a decision in which
it was held that certain employees were self-employed workers,
and others salaried employees. I have taken note of that
decision, and I reiterate the position I expressed at the hearing
concerning its relevance (it being a decision the reasons for
which I do not know), particularly since it is not binding on
me.
[36] Exhibits
I-5 and I-6 are organization charts, one for visual production
and the other for television pre-production. With one exception,
all the witnesses asked to comment stated that these organization
charts did not reflect reality. In fact, Mr. Cadieux said
that he saw no hierarchical structure in what they were doing. It
was a team effort in which each participant had his own area of
expertise. Mr. Cadieux compared the director to an orchestra
conductor.
Analysis
of the representative cases
Switcher
[37] The
position of switcher is found in appeals 2000-3683(EI) and
2000-4198(EI). In reaching his decision regarding this
representative case, the Minister relied on the following
assumptions of fact, the truth of all of which was denied, except
for the first one in appeal number 2000-3683(EI) and the first
two in appeal number 2000-4198(EI):
[TRANSLATION]
(i)
The switchers were responsible for live editing the production
under the direction, and following the shooting script, of the
director.
(ii)
The switchers had to follow a schedule set by the producer and to
complete time sheets.
(iii)
The switchers' work was supervised and planned by the
director.
(iv)
The appellant provided the work premises and all the equipment
required for the switchers' work.
(v)
The switchers were paid by the hour at previously set
rates.
[38] The
workers included in this representative case and the number of
days they worked during the two years at issue are as
follows:
Appeal
|
Name
|
Number of days
|
Year
|
3683
|
Mario
Bourassa
|
2 days
|
1998
|
3683
|
Mathieu Brien
|
9 days
|
1998
|
3683
|
Claude
Blanchard
|
1 day
|
1998
|
3683
|
Jean-Pierre Vachon
|
44
days
|
1998
|
4198
|
Claude
Rouleau
|
1
day
|
1998-1999
|
4198
|
Luc
Boisvert
|
4 days
|
1998-1999
|
4198
|
Mario
Bourassa
|
5 days
|
1998-1999
|
4198
|
Mathieu Brien
|
4 days
|
1998-1999
|
4198
|
Jean-Pierre Vachon
|
10
days
|
1998-1999
|
[39]
Switchers' work consists of doing live editing of the
production. Working with the director or the assistant director,
they switch camera images under their direction but, according to
Mario Bourassa, would not blindly follow the director's
orders. Mr. Bourassa stated that he has a sort of
partnership with the camera operator, which often saves him from
[TRANSLATION] "missing the mark", as he put it.
Although being a switcher requires some training, switchers are
taught mainly by experience. As well, when they must do their
work on new consoles, they are responsible for their own
training. Some switchers pay for their training themselves.
Switchers are hired by the production manager at a predetermined
hourly rate, although they may negotiate a higher rate. They are
not required to provide the console on which they work. Because
people contact them in order to ascertain their availability,
they use answering machines and/or pagers. Since the production
on which they work is a team effort, they sometimes work when
they are ill. They complete their time sheets and are obliged to
follow the shooting schedules. The workers concerned here signed
hiring contracts in the form provided in the collective agreement
with the APVQ.
Prop
person
[40] The
position of prop person is found in appeals 2000-3683(EI),
2000-4917(EI) and 2000-4918(EI). In reaching his decision
regarding this
representative case, the Minister relied on the following
assumptions of fact, of which the appellant companies admitted
only the first to be true:
[TRANSLATION]
(i)
After reading the screenplays, the prop person was responsible
for purchasing, renting or producing the props required for each
filming session.
(ii)
The prop person was obliged to follow a schedule set by the
production manager.
(iii)
The prop person's work was supervised and planned by the unit
manager; the prop person was obliged to complete time
sheets.
(iv)
The appellant provided the premises and all the equipment
required for the prop person's work.
(v)
The prop person was paid by the hour at rates previously set with
the production manager.
[41] The
workers included in this representative case and the number of
days they worked during the years at issue are as
follows:
Case
|
Name
|
Number of days
|
Year
|
3683
|
Sylvie
McLaughlin
|
31
days
|
1998
|
3683
|
Hélène Moisan
|
57
days
|
1998
|
4918
|
Anne
St-Denis
|
1 day
|
1998-1999
|
4918
|
Colombe Raby
|
3
days
|
1998-1999
|
4917
|
Hélène Moisan
|
21
days
|
1998-1999
|
4918
|
Richard Morin
|
as
agreed
|
1998-1999
|
[42]
Ms. Moisan and Ms. St-Denis testified at the hearing.
Their work consists of producing the props required within the
parameters created by each script. Some of their work is done
off-set and sometimes they become on-set prop persons.
Ms. Moisan stated that she works at home in her workshop and
that no one supervises her or monitors her hours or requires
reports from her. This statement was confirmed by
Mr. Cadieux. Ms. Moisan took training at the theatre
school in Ste-Thérèse but received no
training from any production company. She owns her own production
tools and materials such as saws, modelling medium, clay, fabric,
and wood. She is paid for her off-set work on submission of
invoices that she prepares herself.
[43] When
Ms. Moisan works on-set, conditions are different in that
she submits time sheets completed by the co-ordinator. During the
production of "Papi Bonheur", she spent equal amounts
of time working on-set and off-set. For her work on-set, she is
obliged to follow the filming schedule. She ensures that the
props are in the right place according to the script. No one
directs her in her work, but occasionally she discusses her ideas
with the director in the context of the creation of the program.
Ms. Moisan testified that she has some degree of freedom of
action.
[44] As for
Ms. St-Denis, she testified that she worked off-set, at
home. She had an expense account, which she submitted with her
invoices. She set her own work schedule, except when she worked
on-set since she then followed the same schedule as the other
workers.
Camera
operator
[45] The
position of camera operator is found in each of the four appeals.
In reaching his decision regarding this representative case, the
Minister relied on the following assumptions of fact, all of
which the appellant companies admitted to be true, except for the
last two:
[TRANSLATION]
(i)
The camera operators were required to know how to operate the
various models of cameras available in studios in
Montréal.
(ii)
Taking into account the script and the director's shooting
script, the camera operators were responsible for suggesting
shots to the director during the filming sessions.
(iii)
The appellant decided where the camera operators worked, provided
the work tools (cameras), and set the hours of work.
(iv)
The camera operators were paid by the hour on the basis of hours
actually worked and recorded on time sheets.
[46] The
workers included in this representative case and the number of
days they worked are as follows:
Appeal
|
Name
|
Number of days
|
Year
|
3683
|
Luc
Vanier
|
5
days
|
1998
|
3683
|
Daniel Doré
|
3
days
|
1998
|
3683
|
Richard Desmarais
|
2 days
|
1998
|
3683
|
André Dufour
|
2 days
|
1998
|
3683
|
François Blanchette
|
1 day
|
1998
|
3683
|
Eddy
Proulx
|
1 day
|
1998
|
3683
|
Pierre Vanier
|
28
days
|
1998
|
3683
|
Johanne Dion
|
5 days
|
1998
|
3683
|
Horia
Cornescu
|
52
days
|
1998
|
3683
|
Martin Pilon
|
1 day
|
1998
|
4198
|
Jacques Chartrand
|
10
days
|
1998-1999
|
4917
|
Bruno
Desgranges
|
5
days
|
1998-1999
|
4198
|
Luc
Vanier
|
2
days
|
1998-1999
|
4198
|
Pierre Vanier
|
10
days
|
1998-1999
|
4917
|
Martin Pilon
|
5 days
|
1998-1999
|
4917
|
Richard Desmarais
|
4 days
|
1998-1999
|
4917
|
Horia
Cornescu
|
24
days
|
1998-1999
|
4918
|
Eddy
Proulx
|
1 day
|
1998-1999
|
[47] Two camera
operators testified at the hearing. They each indicated the basic
training they had obtained in order to become camera operators.
Usually, camera operators are contacted to ascertain their
availability and to negotiate their hourly rates. They complete
time sheets, some of which were adduced in evidence. They are
paid in accordance with the conditions set out in the collective
agreement. In particular, those conditions provide for a minimum
number of hours per day and set a minimum hourly rate.
[48] Camera
operators arrive half an hour before filming starts or at the
time indicated in the day's schedule. They discuss with the
director his filming plan for the day, which is called in their
jargon the "shooting script". Although camera operators
may make some suggestions, the two camera operators who testified
acknowledged that the director has the last word. These witnesses
described their work as a team effort, adding that a camera
operator attempts to reproduce a balanced picture on screen in
accordance with established principles. Except for snap hooks to
hold cables to their belts, the camera operators' equipment
and tools are owned by the producer.
Hairstylist
[49] The
position of hairstylist is found only in appeal
number 2000-4917(EI). In reaching his decision
regarding this representative case, the Minister relied on the
following assumptions of fact, of which the appellant company
denied the truth of all but the first:
[TRANSLATION]
(i)
Before and during filming, the hairstylist planned and carried
out the necessary hairstyling for the actors in the
production.
(ii)
The hairstylist's hours of work were from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00
p.m., Monday to Friday, which corresponded to the actors'
schedules.
(iii)
The hairstylist always worked with Bruno Rhéaume, the
makeup artist. She says that she completed APVQ time sheets which
were submitted to the production manager, who determined her work
schedule.
(iv)
The hairstylist's work was supervised and planned by the
director.
(v)
The payer provided the work premises and all the equipment
required. When the hairstylist had to provide hairstyling
products, she was reimbursed for the cost of those products on
submission of receipts.
(vi)
The hairstylist was paid $30 per hour. The rate of pay was
negotiated between the hairstylist and the production
manager.
[50] The only
worker named who occupied a position as a hairstylist was
Manon Côté. She worked for 12 days during the
production of "Bibi et Zoé" doing the
hairstyling for the actress who played the role of Zoé.
She received her instructions came from Mr. Rhéaume,
the makeup artist, but said that she did not know who gave the
makeup artist his instructions. Although, according to her, the
work was a team effort, her closest contacts were with the
actress, and she stated that she had a say in the actress's
final hairstyling.
[51] For the
production of "Bibi et Zoé", the hairstylist
worked at the filming studio. She did not remember her hours of
work, but recalled that Mr. Rhéaume told her what
time she was to arrive. She completed and initialled her time
sheets. She signed a standard contract based on the model
provided in the collective agreement with the APVQ. She brought
her own work tools such as scissors, brushes and combs, and
submitted for payment invoices for hair sprays and other
products. She claimed as deductions from income expenses such as
those for the products she uses, for parking, for the use of a
cellular telephone, and for restaurant meals.
Costume
designer
[52] The
position of costume designer is found only in appeal
number 2000-4918(EI). In reaching his decision
regarding this representative case, the Minister relied on the
following assumptions of fact, of which the appellant company
either admitted or denied the truth:
[TRANSLATION]
(i)
The costume designer planned and provided the necessary costumes
for each character in accordance with the script.
(admitted)
(ii)
The costume designer purchased, altered, rented or made the
costumes, and acted as a dresser. (admitted)
(iii)
The costume designer was obliged to follow a schedule set by the director and the
assistant director. A daily schedule (usually 10 hours per day) was drawn up and followed. (denied)
(iv)
The worker's arrivals and departures were controlled by
Nathalie Vallerand, the production manager. A time sheet other
than the APVQ time sheet was completed and submitted to
Ms. Vallerand. (denied)
(v)
The costume designer's work was supervised and planned by the
director, who had the final word following various discussions.
(denied)
(vi)
The appellant provided the work premises and all the equipment
required. When the worker had to make purchases, the cost thereof
was reimbursed by the appellant. (denied)
(vii) The
worker was paid a daily rate of $300; when she had to run
errands, she was paid at an hourly rate of $25. The rate of pay
was negotiated between the worker and the production manager.
(denied)
(viii) The worker
provided her sewing machine, thread and needles; the other
expenses of dyeing, cleaning, alterations, etc. were charged to
the production. (admitted)
[53] Louise
Thibault was the only worker occupying a position as a costume
designer in the production of "Bibi et
Zoé". She was hired by Paul Cadieux at an
hourly rate of $30. The agreement reached was not subject to the
minimum conditions set out in the collective agreement with the
APVQ because the occupation of costume designer is not recognized
in the collective agreement. As a result, Ms. Thibault was
obliged to prepare invoices. Before the production started, she
read the various scripts and discussed with the director the look
each character was to have. Based on that, a budget was drawn up
and Ms. Thibault purchased the costumes. She decided which
days she would shop; the only schedule she had to follow was the
filming schedule, as her presence was required during filming. In
terms of work tools, she needed to have a sewing machine,
scissors and thread. She added expenses for certain items, such
as dye, to her invoices for reimbursement. She stated that she
deducted from her income workspace expenses and kilometrage. In
the end, she stated, although the director had his vision of
things, that vision was not always precise and, if it had been,
the director would in effect have been taking away all the
costume designer's creativity.
Director
of photography
[54] The
position of director of photography is found in appeals
2000-3683(EI) and 2000-4198(EI). In reaching his decision
regarding this representative case, the Minister relied on the
following assumptions of fact, of which the appellant companies
either admitted or denied the truth, as indicated:
Appeal
number 2000-3683(EI):
[TRANSLATION]
(i)
The directors of photography determined the time required for
pre-lighting and for lighting adjustment during filming. They
decided on the lighting, the ambience and the texture of the
picture. (admitted)
(ii)
The directors of photography were obliged to follow a schedule
set by the production manager and to complete time sheets.
(denied)
(iii)
Although the directors of photography could have someone replace
them if necessary, the production manager had the final word in
choosing replacements. (denied)
(iv)
The work of the directors of photography was supervised and
planned by the director. (denied)
(v)
The appellant provided the work premises and the equipment
required for the work of the directors of photography.
(denied)
(vi)
The directors of photography were paid by the hour at a rate
previously negotiated with the production manager. (denied as
written)
Appeal
number 2000-4198(EI):
[TRANSLATION]
(i)
The directors of photography determined the time required for
pre-lighting and for lighting adjustment during filming. They
decided on the lighting, the ambience and the texture of the
picture. (admitted)
(ii)
The directors of photography were obliged to follow a schedule
set by the production manager and to complete time sheets.
(denied)
(iii)
The work of the directors of photography was supervised and
planned by the production manager and the director.
(denied)
(iv)
The appellant provided the work premises and the equipment
required for the work of the directors of photography; they
provided only an exposure meter. (denied)
(v)
The directors of photography were paid by the day at a rate
previously negotiated with the production manager.
(admitted)
[55] The
workers included in this representative case and the number of
days they worked are as follows:
Appeal
|
Name
|
Number of days
|
Year
|
3683
|
Claude
Benoit
|
39
days
|
1998
|
3683
|
Luc
Simard
|
5 days
|
1998
|
3683
|
Denis
Hébert
|
8 days
|
1998
|
4198
|
Claude
Benoit
|
5 days
|
1998-1999
|
4198
|
Sébastien Tremblay
|
5
days
|
1998-1999
|
[56] Claude
Benoit was the only director of photography to testify at the
hearing. He works during the pre-production stage and during
filming. In these particular cases, he was replacing Richard
St-Pierre. After receiving the information required, he drew up a
plan that he discussed with the director. He is responsible for
creating lighting in accordance with established standards and
techniques and for determining the texture of the picture. He
also manages team members responsible for lighting. He provides
his own tools such an exposure meter, a colorimeter, a computer,
and hand tools. During the pre-production stage, he worked at a
flat rate on the basis of 18 hours. He is an APVQ member and
accepts the standards set out in the collective agreement. When
he works on-set, he issues invoices in accordance with the
APVQ standards. He acknowledged that, when he is unable to be at
work on a given day, he ensures that he is replaced.
Decorator
[57] The
position of set designer is found only in appeal
number 2000-4918(EI). Under an agreement between the
parties, Mr. Gagnon was not considered to be an employee of
the appellant company in this instance. The Court therefore
orders that he not be so considered.
Electrician
[58] The
position of electrician is found in each of the four appeals. In
reaching his decision regarding this representative case, the
Minister relied on the following assumptions of fact, of which
the appellant companies either admitted or denied the
truth:
[TRANSLATION]
(i)
Before and sometimes during filming, the electricians set up and
adjusted the lights under the direction of the director of
photography. (admitted)
(ii)
The electricians were obliged to follow a schedule set by the production manager
and to complete time sheets. (denied)
(iii)
Although the electricians could have someone replace them
if necessary, the production
manager had the final word in choosing the replacements.
(denied)
(iv)
The electricians' work was supervised and planned by the head
electrician. (denied)
(v)
The appellant provided the work premises and the equipment
required for the electricians' work; the electricians
provided their small work tools. (denied)
(vi)
The electricians were paid by the hour at a rate previously
negotiated with the production manager. (denied)
[59] The
workers included in this representative case are as follows for
each appeal:
Appeal
|
Name
|
Number of days
|
Year
|
3683
|
Luc
Simard
|
5 days
|
1998
|
3683
|
Denis
Hébert
|
28
days
|
1998
|
3683
|
Marc
Bonneville
|
1 day
|
1998
|
3683
|
François Tanguay
|
6 days
|
1998
|
3683
|
Normand Forget
|
9 days
|
1998
|
3683
|
Daniel
St-Jean
|
5 days
|
1998
|
3683
|
Guy
Laliberté
|
1 day
|
1998
|
4198
|
Michel
Maher
|
2
days
|
1998-1999
|
4198
|
Martin
Lavallée
|
3 days
|
1998-1999
|
4198
|
Stéphane Janson
|
2
days
|
1998-1999
|
4198
|
Hugo
Roy
|
1 day
|
1998-1999
|
4198
|
Richard Ally
|
1 day
|
1998-1999
|
4198
|
Rémi Giroux
|
1 day
|
1998-1999
|
4917
|
Stéphane Roy
|
4 days
|
1998-1999
|
4917
|
Thierry Leblanc
|
3 days
|
1998-1999
|
4917
|
Éric Clément
|
1 day
|
1998-1999
|
4918
|
Jonathan Barro
|
1 day
|
1998-1999
|
[60] Martin
Lavallée and Daniel St-Jean testified at the hearing.
Their job is to set up and take down the lights used during
filming. They follow a plan and work under the instructions of
the head electrician. In these cases, the electricians' hours
could vary and they were told when to show up. They own the small
tools they bring with them, such as drills, circuit testers,
black tape, and cutting pliers. They fill out time sheets, and
they have an APVQ contract. Mr. Lavallée was not
present during the filming. As for Mr. St-Jean, he has on
occasion worked as head electrician. During filming in the
studio, electricians work at a lighting console that allows them
to regulate the intensity of each light. The console belongs to
the production studio. Electricians are usually given their
instructions by the director of photography.
Grip and
grip/set constructor
[61] This is a
position found in three of the appeals, namely:
2000-3683(EI), 2000-4198(EI) and 2000-4917(EI). In reaching
his decision regarding this
representative case, the Minister relied on the following
assumptions of fact, of which the appellant companies either
admitted or denied the truth:
[TRANSLATION]
(i)
The grips were responsible for setting up, taking down,
repairing, and finishing the sets, depending on studio
availability. (admitted)
(ii)
The grips were obliged to follow a schedule set by the director
and to complete time sheets. (denied)
(iii)
Although the grips could have someone replace them if necessary,
the production manager had the final word in choosing the
replacements. (denied as written)
(iv)
The grips' work was supervised and planned by the director.
(denied)
(v)
The appellant company provided the work premises and the
equipment required for the grips' work; the grips were
required to provide small work tools. (denied as
written)
(vi)
The grips were paid by the hour at a rate previously negotiated
with the production manager. (denied as written)
Appeals
2000-4198(EI) and 2000-4917(EI)
[TRANSLATION]
(v)
When the grips were called upon to construct sets, they provided
all the materials and submitted to the appellant invoices for
reimbursement of the cost of their purchases.
(admitted)
[62] The
workers included in this representative case and the number of
days they worked are as follows for each appeal:
Appeal
|
Name
|
Number of days
|
Year
|
3683
|
Michel
Audy
|
59
days
|
1998
|
3683
|
Sylvain Lampron
|
1 day
|
1998
|
3683
|
Gabriel Pérusse
|
47
days
|
1998
|
3683
|
Pierre
Gadoua
|
7
days
|
1998
|
4198
|
Michel
Audy
|
22
days
|
1998-1999
|
4198
|
Marcel
Prince
|
5 days
|
1998-1999
|
4198
|
Stephen Bayard
|
1 day
|
1998-1999
|
4917
|
Sylvain Lampron
|
2 days
|
1998-1999
|
4917
|
Gabriel Pérusse
|
24
days
|
1998-1999
|
4917
|
Pierre
Gauthier
|
5 days
|
1998-1999
|
4917
|
René Robitaille
|
2 days
|
1998-1999
|
4917
|
Michel
Villeneuve
|
1 day
|
1998-1999
|
[63] The
parties agreed that Marcellin Fortin would be included in this
group. Mr. Pérusse and Mr. Lampron testified as
on-set grips. Mr. Pérusse also worked building sets
off-set, as did Mr. Audy. As agreed by the parties,
Mr. Pérusse's testimony is taken as
representative of the work done by both these grips.
[64] On-set
grips' work consists mainly of setting up and taking down
sets, placing furniture, and preparing the entire set for
filming. Grips follow the instructions given by the head grip,
who sets the grips' hours of work and monitors their
presence. According to Mr. Lampron, it was Mr. Audy who
signed his contract as the producer's representative, and a
time sheet was kept. Mr. Lampron stated that he
owned tools such as a cordless electric drill, a hammer, and an
Exacto knife because, he said, good grips bring their own tools.
Mr. Lampron acknowledged that he worked for other producers
and did not claim expenses on his income tax returns for the
years at issue.
[65] While
Mr. Pérusse's testimony concerning the work of
grips on-set was essentially the same, he added being called upon
to handle any special effects. He signed the time sheets that
were completed by the production co-ordinator. He was required to
follow the filming schedule and to provide his own tools. He
worked as much on-set as off-set. He described a typical day
on-set as follows: one arrives in the morning and checks the
filming schedule and the times set for the filming. The schedule
comes from the production co-ordinator and is given to all the
grips. During filming, the grips are called upon to move certain
things. The director and the unit manager may give them
suggestions. Mr. Pérusse has also occasionally worked
as head grip. According to the documentation adduced in evidence,
not all the grips signed the standard contract provided in the
collective agreement with the APVQ: some of them submitted
invoices for their services.
[66] The work
of the grips/set constructors is to construct sets before
filming; they therefore work off-set. Mr. Pérusse
worked with other grips, including Mr. Audy. He had a plan
of the set and worked with that. He did not complete any time
sheets, and no one told him what time to arrive at work. He
recorded his hours and every week submitted to the producer (the
appellant company) an invoice including taxes. He owned his own
work tools such as an electric saw, a saw bench, and a hammer,
because no tools were provided by the appellant companies.
Mr. Pérusse completed his testimony by stating that
if he was unable to be at work he notified Mr. Audy, but
only out of respect and conscientiousness. He did nearly all of
his off-set work as a self-employed worker.
On-line
editor (picture editor)
[67] This is a
position found only in appeal number 2000-4918(EI). In
reaching his decision regarding this representative case, the
Minister relied on the following assumptions of fact, of which
the appellant company either admitted or denied the
truth:
[TRANSLATION]
(i)
The picture editors were responsible for ensuring that the
picture corresponded to the shots planned by the director in the
shooting script. (admitted)
(ii)
The picture editors' hours of work were from 7:30 or
8:00 a.m. to 5:30 or 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday. This
schedule was set so as to meet the requirements of the collective
agreement with the APVQ. (denied)
(iii)
The picture editors were obliged to carry out their work
themselves. (denied)
(iv)
The appellant provided the premises and all the equipment
required, according to the picture editors' availability.
(admitted)
(v)
These workers planned their work without direct supervision by
the payer; occasionally the director had to give his approval and
make artistic decisions. (admitted)
(vi)
The payer set the date on which the work was to be completed.
(admitted)
[68] The
workers included in this representative case are:
Jean-François Lord, Robert Lefebvre, Patrick Dumas,
Michel Valiquette and Charles Bergeron. At the beginning of the
hearing the appellant company concerned informed the Court that
the case was being discontinued with regard to Mr. Lefebvre.
Although Mr. Lefebvre testified at the hearing, I found
nothing in his testimony that could help in deciding the issues,
particularly concerning the on-line editors.
[69] Witness
Michel Valiquette received technical training at the
Jonquière CEGEP; he stated that he had to update his
skills continually. He uses magazines and the Internet as
resources. His work is done in an editing room with the director,
and consists of giving the finished product the look the director
wants. Mr. Valiquette worked mainly in the evening,
depending on studio availability, but no one imposed on him a
work schedule or a minimum number of hours per week. He did,
however, have deadlines to meet. He is not an APVQ member, and
negotiated his hourly rate based on the requirements of the work
and on the duties to be performed. He acknowledged that during
the years at issue he worked mainly for the appellant companies,
but stated that he was free as well to work elsewhere. He
concluded by stating that he himself recorded his hours worked in
his diary. The equipment he used was worth between
$100,000 and $250,000 and did not belong to him. His
work is done during the post-production stage.
Sound
mixer
[70] The
position of sound mixer is found only in appeal
number 2000-4918(EI). In reaching his decision
regarding this representative
case, the Minister relied on the following assumptions of fact,
of which the appellant company either admitted or denied the
truth:
[TRANSLATION]
(i)
The sound mixer mixed the sound within the parameters established
by the original sound and the music provided by the composer.
(admitted)
(ii)
The sound was mixed at the Covitec studio located at 3401
St-Antoine. (admitted)
(iii)
The sound mixer worked when called, depending on studio
availability; the mixer's work and hours of work were
planned. (denied)
(iv)
The appellant provided the work premises and all the equipment
required through the Covitec studio. (admitted)
(v)
The sound mixer was paid by the hour at a rate previously
negotiated with the production manager. (admitted)
[71] The only
worker in this representative case is Marc Daneau. He worked on
the production of the "Bibi et Zoé" show during
the periods at issue. His work included doing the audio mixing,
calibrating the voices, and producing sound effects and noises.
He stated that he had no specific work schedule and that he
worked mainly in the evening at times that suited him. Although
he had deadlines to meet, no one monitored his arrivals and
departures. He invoiced the appellant company for his time at an
hourly rate of $16 that he had agreed on with the appellant
company. The director, while not a supervisor, did have to
approve the finished product. Mr. Daneau takes vacations
when he wishes. He also provides training in his field. He works
using an on-line monitor. The equipment belongs to the producer
(the appellant company) since it is worth over $200,000. During
the years at issue, Mr. Daneau worked mainly for the
appellant company, but he acknowledged that he could have worked
elsewhere. His work is done during the post-production
stage.
Makeup
artist
[72] The
position of makeup artist is found in appeals 2000-3683(EI),
2000-4917(EI) and 2000-4918(EI). In reaching his
decision regarding this representative case, the Minister relied
on the following assumptions of fact, the truth of which was
either admitted or denied:
[TRANSLATION]
(a)
The makeup artists planned and carried out the necessary makeup
work on the actors in the production (admitted); they were
required to be present before and during filming.
(denied)
(b)
The makeup artists were obliged to follow a schedule set by the
production manager on the basis of the scenes to be filmed and
the actors' availability. (denied)
(c)
The makeup artists worked in a studio in Ville LaSalle.
(admitted)
(d)
The makeup artists could not have someone replace them.
(denied)
(e)
The makeup artists' arrivals and departures were monitored;
they had to complete APVQ time sheets and submit them to the
production manager. (denied)
(f)
The appellant provided the work premises and all the equipment
required for the makeup artists' work, except for makeup
products. (denied)
(g)
The makeup artists were paid by the hour at a rate of
$25 previously set between them and the production manager.
(denied)
[73] The
workers included in this representative case are:
Appeal
|
Name
|
Number of days
|
Year
|
3683
|
Bruno
Rhéaume
|
36
days
|
1998
|
3683
|
Julie
Migneault
|
13
days
|
1998
|
4917
|
Julie
Migneault
|
11
days
|
1998-1999
|
4918
|
Bruno
Rhéaume
|
13
days
|
1998-1999
|
[74] The only
witness in this category was Bruno Rhéaume. Usually he is
hired by the production manager and negotiates his hourly rate.
He subsequently attends a production meeting at which the
characters, their traits, similarities and costumes, and the
lighting are discussed. Filming hours are variable, a fact that
affects Mr. Rhéaume's hours of work. His work consists
of making up the actors according to production requirements and
the scenes to be filmed. He is an APVQ member, and signed his
hiring contract in accordance with the collective agreement. He
also invoiced the appellant company for preparation time. He
signed his time sheets and benefited from the application of the
minimum standards set out in the collective agreement. He
explained that he obtains, from actors who want his services for
personal purposes, contracts that are not subject to the
collective agreement. He acknowledged that no one told him how to
apply makeup, but added that it can happen that the results not
meet expectations and that he will then be obliged to alter his
approach. He did not recall any particular situation in which his
makeup was unsatisfactory. He provides items such as his makeup
kit, makeup products and brushes.
Video
recorder operator
[75] The
position of video recorder operator is found only in appeal
number 2000-3683(EI). In reaching his decision
regarding this representative case, the Minister relied on the
following assumptions of fact, of which the appellant company
either admitted or denied the truth:
[TRANSLATION]
(i)
The video recorder operators were responsible for operating one
or more recording or playback machines according to production
requirements. (admitted)
(ii)
The video recorder operators were obliged to follow a schedule
set by the production manager and to complete time sheets.
(denied)
(iii)
Although the video recorder operators could have someone replace
them if necessary, the production manager had the final word in
choosing the replacements. (denied as written)
(iv)
The video recorder operators' work was supervised and planned
by the production manager. (denied)
(v)
The appellant provided the work premises and the equipment
required for the video recorder operators' work.
(denied)
(vi)
The video recorder operators were paid by the hour at a rate
previously negotiated with the production manager.
(admitted)
[76] The
workers included in this representative case and the number of
days they worked are as follows:
Name
|
Number of days
|
Year
|
Martin
Charron
|
1 day
|
1998
|
Julie
Hudon
|
14
days
|
1998
|
[77] Julie
Hudon has an arts and technology diploma from the
Jonquière CEGEP. In 1998, she worked as a video recorder
operator for the appellant company for approximately 10 days
spread out over several weeks, recording the program and
operating the playback machine. The director told her what to do.
She was called three or four days ahead of time and informed of
the time she was to arrive. Her hours of work were set by the
person who had hired her; that person completed
Ms. Hudon's time sheets, which Ms. Hudon
initialled. Examples of Ms. Hudon's pay slips were adduced in
evidence as Exhibit I-12. Although Ms. Hudon was not an APVQ
member, standard hiring contracts like those provided in the
collective agreement with the APVQ were adduced in
evidence.
Boom
operator
[78] The
position of boom operator is found in appeals 2000-3683(EI),
2000-4198(EI) and 2000-4917(EI). In reaching his decision
regarding this
representative case, the Minister relied on the following
assumptions of fact, the truth of which was either admitted or
denied:
[TRANSLATION]
(i)
The boom operators were responsible for following the action with
the boom in order to ensure sound pickup under the direction of
the sound recordist. (admitted)
(ii)
The boom operators worked in studios in Ville LaSalle rented by
the appellant. (admitted)
(iii)
The boom operators were obliged to follow a work schedule and to
complete time sheets. (denied)
(iv)
Although the boom operators could have someone replace them if
necessary, the production
manager had the final word in choosing the replacements.
(denied as written)
(v)
The boom operators' work was supervised and planned by the
sound recordist. (denied as written)
(vi)
The appellant provided the premises and all the equipment
required for the boom operators' work. (denied)
(vii
) The boom operators
were paid by the hour at a previously set rate. (denied as
written)
[79] The
workers included in this representative case and the number of
days they worked are as follows for the various
appeals:
Appeal
|
Name
|
Number of days
|
Year
|
3683
|
René Lamontagne
|
24
days
|
1998
|
3683
|
Claude
Meunier
|
11
days
|
1998
|
3683
|
Michel
Béland
|
1
day
|
1998
|
3683
|
Michel
Nicolas
|
1 day
|
1998
|
3683
|
Serge
Martineau
|
2 days
|
1998
|
4198
|
René Lamontagne
|
1
day
|
1998-1999
|
4198
|
Serge
Kasparian (Berge)
|
3
days
|
1998-1999
|
4917
|
Claude
Meunier
|
18
days
|
1998-1999
|
[80] The boom
operator's work consists of picking up the actors' words
using a boom. On arrival on the set in the morning, the boom
operator receives the scripts, and the shoot is rehearsed. The
boom operator must make sure that the boom does not cast shadows
while at the same time placing the boom correctly in relation to
the actors, depending on the lighting. The production manager
tells the boom operator what time the filming begins. The
equipment used by the boom operator does not belong to him.
Although the boom operator deals directly with the sound
recordist, apparently the sound recordist does not tell him where
to place the boom. Under cross-examination, witness René
Lamontagne acknowledged that the sound recordist might ask him to
position himself higher, or to raise or remove the boom. He works
using an intercom system linking him with the director, the sound
recordist and the unit manager. The unit manager, being
responsible for on-set operations, asks the boom operator to move
into place. This witness stated that he signed a time sheet and
that his hourly rate was set by agreement. He did similar work
elsewhere, and could have himself replaced by a person of his
choice or by a person chosen by the production manager. Boom
operators are APVQ members and benefit from application of the
minimum standards set out in the collective agreement.
Sound
recordist
[81] The
position of sound recordist is found in appeals 2000-3683(EI),
2000-4198(EI) and 2000-4917(EI). In reaching his decision
regarding this representative case, the Minister relied on the
following assumptions of fact, of which the appellant companies
admitted or denied the truth, or of which they said they had no
knowledge:
[TRANSLATION]
(i)
The sound recordists were responsible for preparing the sound
sampling required for the filming and for editing the sound
effects to be played. (no knowledge)
(ii)
Although the sound recordists could have someone replace them if
necessary, the production
manager had the final word in choosing the replacements.
(denied as written)
(iii)
The sound operators' work was supervised and planned by the
director. (denied)
(iv)
The appellant provided the work premises and all the equipment
required for the sound recordists' work. (denied as
written)
(v)
The sound recordists were paid by the hour at a previously set
rate. (denied as written)
Appeal
number 2000-4198(EI)
[TRANSLATION]
(ii)
The sound recordist directed the boom operators in picking up the
actors' words in order to record them from the console.
(denied as written)
(iii)
The sound recordist's work was supervised and planned by the
associate producer. (denied)
[82] The
workers included in this representative case and the number of
days they worked are as follows for each of the appeals in
question:
Appeal
|
Name
|
Number of days
|
Year
|
3683
|
Francis Ledoux
|
36
days
|
1998
|
3683
|
Benoit
Leduc
|
1 day
|
1998
|
3683
|
Marc
Provencher
|
16
days
|
1998
|
4198
|
Francis Ledoux
|
18
days
|
1998-1999
|
4917
|
Marc
Provencher
|
6 days
|
1998-1999
|
[83] The sound
recordist's work consists of recording the sound of the
actors' voices. He receives his instructions chiefly from the
director, but works mainly in co-operation with the boom
operators. The sound recordist may occasionally give instructions
to the boom operators, but boom operators are professionals.
Witness Francis Ledoux stated that he was an APVQ member and
subject to the conditions set out in the collective agreement.
According to Mr. Ledoux, the words "mutual
understanding" written in under the heading
"replacement conditions" in the hiring contract mean
that he will report for work unless he is ill, and that he will
find a replacement if necessary. He explained that some producers
required sound recordists to find their own replacements, while
other producers looked after finding replacements themselves.
Replacements are paid by the producer. The hourly rate is
negotiated with the production co-ordinator or the associate
producer. Mr. Ledoux further testified that his time sheets
were filled out by Nathalie Vallerand and that he then
signed them. He added that he was sometimes paid for preparation
time. He does not own any of the tools required for the
performance of his duties. Experience has taught him that he
needs to arrive relatively early in order to prepare for the
day's filming. He deducts expenses such as those for a pager
and a cellular telephone.
Unit
manager
[84] The
position of unit manager is found in appeals 2000-3683(EI),
2000-4198(EI) and 2000-4917(EI). In reaching his decision
regarding this representative case, the Minister relied on the
following assumptions of fact, of which the appellant companies
either admitted or denied the truth:
[TRANSLATION]
(i)
The unit mangers read and analysed the scripts in the light of
the director's shooting script; during filming, they ensured
that all on-set equipment was in place and working properly.
(admitted)
(ii)
The unit mangers were obliged to follow a work schedule and to
complete time sheets. (denied)
(iii)
Although the unit managers could have someone replace them if
necessary, the production
manager had the final word in choosing the replacements.
(denied as written)
(iv)
The unit managers' work was supervised and planned by the
director. (denied)
(v)
The appellant provided the premises and all the equipment
required for the unit managers' work. (denied)
(vi)
The unit mangers were paid by the hour at a previously set rate.
(denied as written)
Appeal
number 2000-4198(EI)
[TRANSLATION]
(iii)
The unit managers' work was supervised and planned by the
production manager. (denied)
[85] The
workers included in this representative case and the number of
days they worked are as follows for the various appeals
concerned:
Appeal
|
Name
|
Number of days
|
Year
|
3683
|
Kim
McCraw
|
41
days
|
1998
|
3683
|
Alain
Lévesque
|
8 days
|
1998
|
3683
|
Lyne
Jacob
|
3 days
|
1998
|
3683
|
Jenny
Tessier
|
7 days
|
1998
|
4198
|
Éric Tessier
|
13
days
|
1998-1999
|
4917
|
Sylvie
Parent (Plante)
|
1
day
|
1998-1999
|
4917
|
Gaétan Gervais
|
5
days
|
1998-1999
|
4917
|
Michel
De Gagné
|
6
days
|
1998-1999
|
[86] The unit
manager is responsible for directing the technical team so that
the filming of the program takes place in accordance with the
schedule that has been set. A copy of the schedule is given to
the persons concerned; the work requires some degree of
preparation. There are rehearsals with the actors. The director
may make a few minor changes, and then all is ready for filming.
The unit manager communicates with the director and the other
on-set workers using an intercom system and headsets. Each
person's work is determined in advance, and it is the unit
manager's job to ensure that the plan is followed. The work
is a team effort aimed at producing a television program of the
highest quality within a tight deadline. According to Kim McCraw,
the unit manager is not the technicians' and actors'
superior but, on-set, directs and supervises so that everyone is
working together. Ms. McCraw had difficulty accepting the
hierarchical aspect of the organization chart (Exhibit I-5).
She stated that she was in a way the one in charge, but added
that the real boss was the producer (in this instance, the
appellant concerned). According to Ms. McCraw, the work is
done collaboratively. The unit manager is, as it were, an
orchestra conductor who sees to it that everyone does their job
at the right time, without necessarily telling them how to do it.
Ms. McCraw signed her time sheets and sometimes completed
them herself. She was hired in accordance with the collective
agreement with the APVQ, at an hourly rate that she negotiated
and that is considered standard for the work she does. She owns
no work tools, and she learned her trade on the job.
Miscellaneous
[87] Under the
agreements reached between the parties in these appeals, only
Anthony Ellis is left in this category. According to the
written arguments, there is also the case of Annie Tapp, but
the parties have given the Court no indication concerning her. In
fact, Jean Gagnon testified that Ms. Tapp had worked
for him constructing sets. Since the parties have agreed that Mr.
Gagnon is not be considered an employee of the appellant company
concerned and since I have so ordered, I also so order concerning
Ms. Tapp, that is, I declare that she was not an employee of
the appellant company concerned.
[88] In
reaching his decision concerning the case of Mr. Ellis, the
Minister relied on the following assumptions of fact, of which
the appellant company concerned either admitted or denied the
truth:
[TRANSLATION]
(i)
Mr. Ellis was hired to construct and move sets and to build the
rooms and offices required for the production.
(admitted)
(ii)
Mr. Ellis was obliged to follow a schedule set by the grip
(Michel Audy). (denied as written)
(iii)
The appellant set the number of hours Mr. Ellis was to work
through the grip; Mr. Ellis's arrivals and departures
were monitored by means of the time sheet he was obliged to
complete. (denied)
(iv)
Mr. Ellis's work was supervised and planned by the grip.
(denied)
(v)
The appellant provided the work premises and all the equipment
required; Mr. Ellis had to provide his tools (jigsaw, Skil
saw, router, and screwdrivers). (denied as written)
(vi)
The worker was paid $18 per hour; his rate of pay was
negotiated with the payer or its officers. (admitted)
[89]
Mr. Ellis testified that he worked for a production in 1998
but was unsure which production it was. He spoke at times of one
day of work and at other times of perhaps 10 days. He referred to
"Bibi et Geneviève" as the production in
question, but that production was before "Bibi et
Zoé". The invoice for Mr. Ellis's services,
which was adduced in evidence (Exhibit I-1(B),
Tab 11), is made out to "Bibi et Geneviève"
and is for 72 hours of work. Mr. Ellis stated, however, that
he might have worked on that production for only one hour.
Mr. Ellis is not an APVQ member. He testified nonetheless
that he thought he was an APVQ member in 1998, but later
corrected himself. He recalled having worked for three hours one
day with Mr. Audy. He stated that he had worked for other
people, including Mr. Cadieux, on various renovation
projects. He added that he did not construct any sets in
1998.
[90]
Mr. Ellis's testimony was far from being clear and
precise and was therefore not very reliable. That said, I deduce
therefrom that in 1998 he did indeed work for one of the
appellant companies on the production of the "Bibi et
Zoé" shows as an on-set grip during the filming. This
work, he said, was spread out over two weeks, that is, 10 days,
as shown by the invoice adduced in evidence. Mr. Ellis will
be treated as an on-set grip in the same way as the other workers
included in that representative case.
Analysis
[91] The case
law shows us that there is no universal, conclusive test and that
we must consider the nature of the total relationship between the
parties to the contract of employment. I have already noted that
the collective agreement between the employers and the workers is
a factor to be considered. Although agreements of this type are
most often found in the context of a contract of service, in this
case, the agreement was reached not under the Labour Code
but under the Act respecting the professional status and
conditions of engagement of performing, recording and film
artists (see clause 1.01 of the agreement). I must also take
into consideration articles 2085 to 2100 of the Civil Code of
Québec, which deal with the basic principles governing
employer-employee relationships and the concept of the contract
for services. Also to be taken into consideration are the tests
set out in the case law to which I have made reference
above.
[92] Although
the great majority of the workers who testified are APVQ members,
those whose positions are included in the prop person and on-line
editor representative cases are not. Some but not all of the
grips are APVQ members, and the video recorder operator who
testified stated that she was not an APVQ member but used the
APVQ form to document her hours and ensure that she was paid. All
the workers are involved in producing television programs or
similar productions, and their talent is much sought after by
producers of these programs, such as the appellant
companies.
[93] The
collective agreement that applies to these workers provides for
minimum working conditions and for dispute resolution. It also
sets out various commitments, in particular regarding the minimum
number of hours for which workers are to be paid. Unlike a normal
collective agreement, it allows the workers to which it applies
to negotiate their hourly rates individually. The APVQ, one of
the signatories to the collective agreement, is a duly certified
association whose mandate is to represent and to negotiate for
the self-employed artists who are its members.
Control
[94] Control is
an important factor in determining whether there is a contract of
service or a contract for services in a given case. In Gallant
v. M.N.R., [1986] F.C.J. No. 330, the Federal Court of Appeal
points out that the distinguishing feature of a contract of
service is not the control actually exercised by the employer
over its employee, but the power the employer has to control the
way the employee performs his duties.
[95] These
appeals involve producers of television programs who, to achieve
their objective, must bring together a group of participants who
each have their own knowledge, know-how, talent and creativity.
These producers therefore call upon various APVQ members and
workers whose positions are included in the defined
representative cases and whose services are required in order to
produce these programs. Although the script is certainly created
in advance by the producers and writers, the finished product
will be the result of the talent, know-how and creativity
contributed by each person at each stage of the
production.
[96] The
workers could each negotiate their hourly rates. The number of
hours worked was not monitored because, under the collective
agreement, a minimum number of hours per day was guaranteed. The
workers had only to show up in the morning at the location where
the filming was to take place to be guaranteed 10 hours'
pay. The contracts signed included a "mutual
understanding" clause allowing the workers to have someone
replace them if they were not available on a given day of
filming. As well, some workers arrived early in order to prepare
for the filming.
[97] Unit
manager Kim McCraw described the production of a television
program as a team effort aimed at producing a show of the highest
quality within a tight deadline. Although she considers herself
to be a bit like an orchestra conductor, seeing to it that
everyone does their job at the right time, without necessarily
telling them how to do it, she does not believe that there is a
hierarchy of authority. Claude Blanchard, a director,
considers all participants equal. While acknowledging that he has
the final word, he says that all the workers are reliable
professionals and that his job is to pull things
together.
[98]
Mario Bourassa, a switcher, does not blindly follow the
director's orders in carrying out his work. Rather, he feels
that he has a sort of partnership with the camera operator and
sees the overall production as a team effort. As for the camera
operators, they testified that they discussed the filming plan
for the day with the director. The two witnesses testifying with
respect to the switchers' representative case acknowledged
that the director had the final word but described their work as
a team effort through which they attempted to produce a balanced
picture on screen in accordance with established
principles.
[99] With
respect to the hairstylist position, the situation is similar to
the representative cases dealt with above.
Manon Côté stated that her instructions came
from Bruno Rhéaume, the makeup artist. While
recognizing that the overall production was a team effort, she
stated that her closest contacts were with the actress whose hair
she styled, and that she had a say in the final hairstyling for
the actress.
[100] Costume designer
Louise Thibault was quite categorical in describing her part
in the production. She spoke of her role in creating the look
each character was to have. She acknowledged that the director
had his vision of things, but emphasized that if he had imposed
that vision on her, he would in effect have been taking away her
creativity. The director of photography's role is to draw up
a plan for producing lighting in accordance with established
standards and techniques, and to discuss the plan with the
director. Director of photography Claude Benoit admitted
that he had replaced someone and could also have had himself
replaced on days when he was unable to be present.
[101] The electricians must
follow the plan and the instructions of the head electrician in
carrying out their work. When working as head electrician, they
receive their instructions from the director of photography. As
for the grips, their testimony as a whole allows me to conclude
that they were called upon to build the sets in accordance with
the plans that had been drawn up, but that no one monitored their
hours of work (except on-set) or told them how to do their work.
The on-line editor was free to work when he wished but had
deadlines to meet. His hourly rate was negotiated on the basis of
the requirements of the work, and he was free to work elsewhere.
These same characteristics are shared by the sound mixer
position.
[102] Sound recordist
Francis Ledoux described the boom operators as professionals
and stated that he worked in co-operation with them. He is
obliged to follow the filming schedule but, if necessary, can
have himself replaced by a person of his choice or someone chosen
by the producer. Boom operator René Lamontagne
testified along the same lines.
[103] The prop persons work
off-set and on-set. On-set, they follow the filming schedule but
no one directs them in their work. Off-set, they work at home
according to their own schedule.
[104] All these features of
each person's involvement in the production of the programs
in question support the conclusion that a production of this type
is the result of the ideas, talent, creativity, and know-how
brought by all to the performance of their respective duties,
which they carry out under the control of the producer in terms
of how their work is to be done. Everything takes place in an
atmosphere of collaboration among professionals. Thus, the
situation of the workers in these appeals is more like that of
self-employed workers.
Ownership of the tools
[105] Ownership of the tools
is a factor that may be helpful in deciding the issue. Here, not
all the workers needed tools in order to perform their duties.
The cases I consider as possibly being relevant are those of the
grips, who had to have their own tools to build sets, the
electricians, the director of photography, the hairstylist, the
makeup artists, and the prop persons, who were also required to
provide their own tools. The camera operators used the
studios' equipment and provided only their own snap hooks.
Other workers such as on-line editors, sound mixers, video
recorder operators, boom operators and sound recordists used the
equipment that was made available to them by the producers and
that was part of a production studio. This very expensive
equipment is made available to the workers by the producers.
Clearly, except for these large items, ownership of which is
better suited to a production studio, the workers provided their
own tools. The weight to be given to ownership of the tools
varies somewhat depending on the representative case concerned,
since some trades require workers to provide their own tools. I
shall therefore consider this factor in an overall fashion in
deciding the issue in these appeals.
Profit
and loss
[106] This factor, which has
to do with the workers' chances of making a profit and the
risk they run of suffering a loss, has some degree of importance
if we consider it overall, over an entire year. The number of
contracts each worker could obtain, the purchase and maintenance
of tools, and the hourly rate negotiated with each producer are
all elements that can bring about profits or losses for a worker.
However, if we consider this factor more narrowly, there is no
real chance of profit or risk of loss because, by setting a
minimum hourly rate agreed to by the workers, the collective
agreement guaranteed the workers a fixed compensation. This
aspect of the test therefore tends to work against the appellant
companies.
Integration
[107] Notwithstanding the
existence in these appeals of a collective agreement between the
employers and the workers, that collective agreement allows
freelance workers the freedom to negotiate on an individual
basis. The hiring contract was signed on the basis of a
"mutual understanding" with respect to replacement
conditions. Workers who were members of the APVQ were therefore
entitled to have themselves replaced if necessary and even to
choose their own replacements. This allowed workers to be hired
by other production companies and thus gave them a freedom of
action that made them independent of the schedules of the
producers (the appellant companies). Most of the workers
testified that they themselves were responsible for obtaining the
training they needed in order to remain up-to-date.
[108] The majority of the
workers concerned wear devices through which they can be
contacted, since they are always looking for contracts with other
producers. Although clearly there may be differences between one
representative case and another, overall, considering the
relationships established and the conditions agreed to in the
contracts, the workers in these appeals were not integrated into
the appellant companies' business. They did not provide their
services to the appellants alone. This test therefore favours the
appellants.
[109] As for the workers who
were not APVQ members, I apply to them the same conclusions as
those I have reached concerning those who were APVQ members,
since most of them signed the same standard form contract
provided in the collective agreement. Some workers submitted
invoices directly to the appellant companies, which is in fact
more in keeping with the existence of a contract for
services.
Conclusion
[110] After analysing the
whole of the evidence, the circumstances surrounding the
contracts, the contract conditions, the obligations of the
parties to the contracts, their respective rights under the
collective agreement, the question of the status of self-employed
worker, and the tests set out in the case law that enable us to
analyse the nature of the total relationship between the parties
to the contracts, I conclude that the workers in these appeals
are self-employed workers and that the contracts between them and
the appellant companies were contracts for services, or at least
were more like contracts for services than contracts of
service.
[111] Accordingly, the
Minister's decisions are vacated and the appeals are
allowed.
Signed at
Ottawa, Canada, this 6th day of November 2002.
J.T.C.C.COURT
FILE
NOS.:
2000-3683(EI); 2000-4198(EI);
2000-4917(EI); 2000-4918(EI)
STYLES OF
CAUSES:
LES PRODUCTIONS PETIT BONHOMME INC.
LES PRODUCTIONS BIBI ET ZOÉ INC.
and The Minister of National
Revenue
PLACE OF
HEARING:
Montréal, Quebec
DATES OF
HEARING:
November 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23, 2001
REASONS FOR
JUDGMENT BY: The Honourable Judge
François Angers
DATE OF
JUDGMENT:
November 6, 2002
APPEARANCES:
For the
Appellants:
Roch Guertin
For the
Respondent:
Stéphane Arcelin
For the
Intervener:
The Intervener himself
COUNSEL OF
RECORD:
For the
Appellants:
Name:
Roch Guertin
Firm:
Montréal, Quebec
For the
Respondent:
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Canada
2000-3683(EI)
BETWEEN:
LES
PRODUCTIONS PETIT BONHOMME INC.,
Appellant,
and
THE MINISTER
OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent.
Appeals
heard on common evidence with the appeals of
Les
Productions Bibi et Zoé Inc.
(2000-4198(EI), 2000-4917(EI) and 2000-4918(EI))
on
November 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23, 2001, at Montréal,
Quebec, by
the
Honourable Judge François Angers
Appearances
Counsel for
the
Appellant:
Roch Guertin
Counsel for
the
Respondent:
Stéphane Arcelin
JUDGMENT
The appeals are allowed and the Minister's decision is
vacated in accordance with the attached Reasons for
Judgment.
Signed at
Ottawa, Canada, this 6th day of November 2002.
J.T.C.C.
2000-4917(EI)
BETWEEN:
LES
PRODUCTIONS BIBI ET ZOÉ INC.,
Appellant,
and
THE MINISTER
OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent.
Appeals
heard on common evidence with the appeals of
Les
Productions Petit Bonhomme Inc.(2000-3683(EI)) and
Les
Productions Bibi et Zoé Inc. (2000-4198(EI)) and (2000-4918(EI))
on November
19, 20, 21, 22 and 23, 2001, at Montréal, Quebec,
by
the
Honourable Judge François Angers
Appearances
Counsel for
the
Appellant:
Roch Guertin
Counsel for
the
Respondent:
Stéphane Arcelin
JUDGMENT
The appeals are allowed and the Minister's decision is
vacated in accordance with the attached Reasons for
Judgment.
Signed at
Ottawa, Canada, this 6th day of November 2002.
J.T.C.C.
2000-4918(EI)
BETWEEN:
LES
PRODUCTIONS BIBI ET ZOÉ INC.,
Appellant,
and
THE MINISTER
OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent,
and
CHRISTIAN
ODELL,
Intervener.
Appeals
heard on common evidence with the appeals of
Les
Productions Petit Bonhomme Inc.(2000-3683(EI)) and
Les
Productions Bibi et Zoé Inc. 2000-4198(EI)) and (2000-4917(EI))
on November
19, 20, 21, 22 and 23, 2001, at Montréal, Quebec,
by
the
Honourable Judge François Angers
Appearances
Counsel for
the
Appellant:
Roch Guertin
Counsel for
the
Respondent:
Stéphane Arcelin
For the
Intervener:
The Intervener himself
JUDGMENT
The appeals are allowed and the Minister's decision is
vacated in accordance with the attached Reasons for
Judgment.
Signed at
Ottawa, Canada, this 6th day of November 2002.
J.T.C.C.
2000-4198(EI)
BETWEEN:
LES
PRODUCTIONS BIBI ET ZOÉ INC.,
Appellant,
and
THE MINISTER
OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent.
Appeals
heard on common evidence with the appeals of
Les
Productions Petit Bonhomme Inc.(2000-3683(EI)) and
Les
Productions Bibi et Zoé Inc. (2000-4917(EI) and 2000-4918(EI))
on November
19, 20, 21, 22 and 23, 2001, at Montréal, Quebec,
by
the
Honourable Judge François Angers
Appearances
Counsel for
the
Appellant:
Roch Guertin
Counsel for
the
Respondent:
Stéphane Arcelin
JUDGMENT
The appeals are allowed and the Minister's decision is
vacated in accordance with the attached Reasons for
Judgment.
Signed at
Ottawa, Canada, this 6th day of November 2002.
J.T.C.C.