Citation: 2005TCC274
Date: 20050505
Docket: 2004-3957(EI)
BETWEEN:
MARCHÉ DUCHEMIN & FRÈRES INC.,
Appellant,
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent,
and
RICHARD DUCHEMIN,
Intervener.
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH
TRANSLATION]
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Savoie, D. J.
[1] This appeal was
heard at Montréal, Quebec on February 22, 2005.
[2] This appeal
concerns the insurability of the employment of Richard Duchemin, the worker,
while in the service of the Appellant, from January 1, 2003, to January 29, 2004,
the period at issue. On July 5, 2004, the Minister of National Revenue (the
"Minister") informed the Appellant of his decision, according to
which the worker held insurable employment during the period at issue.
[3] In his decision,
the Minister found that the worker held insurable employment with the Appellant
under the terms of a contract of service, basing his decision on the following
assumptions of fact:
5.(a) the Appellant
was incorporated on January 6, 1984; (admitted)
(b) the Appellant
operated a grocery store under the IGA banner; (admitted)
(c) the opening
hours of the Appellant are from 6 am to 11 pm, 7 days
a week; (admitted)
(d) the Appellant
hired approximately sixty (60) employees per year; (denied)
(e) the Appellant
had a turnover of approximately $17 million; (unknown)
(f) since 1996,
the worker had served as manager of the store; (admitted)
(g) the duties of
the worker consisted of organizing and controlling all the operations of the store,
hiring and supervising the section managers, drawing up schedules and
supervising marketing; (to be completed)
(h) Normand
Duchemin, the majority shareholder of the Appellant, devoted between and 2 and
3 hours of work per day on behalf of the Appellant; (admitted)
(i) the worker made
the operational decisions for the Appellant; (admitted)
(j) the worker was
required to report to the Appellant at formal meetings; (denied)
(k) the worker
performed his duties at the Appellant's place of business; (to be completed)
(l) the worker
worked from 7 am to 6 pm, 5 days a week, for the
Appellant, and had Wednesdays and Sundays free; (denied)
(m) the worker had five
weeks' paid annual vacation; (denied)
(n) the worker
worked between 45 and 55 hours per week for the Appellant; (denied)
(o) the worker was
paid $1,565 a week; (admitted)
(p) the Appellant
never renounced his authority over the worker; (denied)
(q) the worker
incurred no expenses in the performance of his duties; (denied)
(r) the worker
incurred no financial risk in the performance of his duties for the Appellant;
(denied)
(s) all the
materials and equipment used by the worker belonged to the Appellant; (denied)
(t) the duties of
the worker formed an integral part of the operations of the Appellant;
(admitted)
6. The Appellant and the worker
are related within the meaning of the Income Tax Act since:
(a) the
shareholders of the Appellant were Normand Duchemin, majority shareholder and
Les Placements DJR Duchemin Inc.; (admitted)
(b) the
shareholders with voting rights of Les Placements DJR Duchemin Inc. were:
Normand
Duchemin 55 % of the shares
Daniel
Duchemin 15 % of the shares
Jean Duchemin 15
% of the shares
the worker 15
% of the shares; (admitted)
(c) Normand
Duchemin is the father of the worker and Daniel and Jean Duchemin are the
brothers of the worker; (admitted)
(d) the worker was
related by blood to a person who controlled the Appellant; (admitted)
7. The Minister also determined that
the Appellant and the worker were deemed to be at arm's length in the context
of this employment, as the Minister was satisfied that it was reasonable to
conclude that the Appellant and the worker would have concluded a virtually
similar contract of employment had they been at arm's length, having regard to
the following circumstances:
(a) the worker’s
salary was reasonable in view of the work performed and the ability of the
Appellant; (denied)
(b) the worker had
no taxable automobile benefits and the Appellant paid none of the worker's
personal expenses; (to be completed)
(c) the worker had
a flexible work schedule which corresponded to the needs of the Appellant; (denied)
(d) the worker had
invested no money, nor had he guaranteed any of the Appellant’s loans;
(admitted)
(e) the Appellant
allowed the worker considerable freedom in performing his duties, but the
Appellant had the last word on major decisions; (denied)
(f) the worker's
conditions of employment were not unreasonable in light of the position he held
in the business, i.e., the worker received five weeks' vacation and had
unlimited sick days, whereas the other employees had four weeks' vacation and
four days of sick leave per year; (denied)
(g) the period of
employment coincided with the operations of the Appellant; (to be completed)
(h) the work
performed by the worker was essential to the business of the Appellant.
(admitted)
[4] The following was
revealed by the evidence submitted at the hearing.
[5] The Appellant hired
between 90 and 100 employees per year. The duties of the worker consisted of
looking after the planning, development and control of the business. He was the
one who looked after customer service and who directed the entire management
side of the business. He was also the one who managed all the staff, with the help
of the department managers. It was established that the worker was involved in everything.
He would even do the sweeping and pick up things that had fallen on the floor.
He was the one who hired and supervised the department managers and established
the schedules and the marketing of all food products. During the period at
issue, he shared management responsibilities of the business with his brother,
Jean Duchemin. They received the same salary. It was also established that the
three brothers, Daniel, Jean and the worker, received the same salary. This
produced the comment from the Appellant and from the shareholders that they
found it strange that the jobs of the brothers of the worker had been found
non-insurable, while the Minister maintained that the employment of the worker
was insurable.
[6] During the period
at issue, the salary of the worker and of his brothers was $1,065 per week.
Their salaries had been determined by the worker and his brothers, in light of
their individual needs and were not in any way tied to their duties or to their
performance. The three brothers had also increased this salary by $500 a week
as a bonus. The bonus was also determined on the basis of the needs of the
worker and of his brothers. The evidence showed that the worker and his
brothers had the authority to adjust this salary and the bonus as they saw fit.
Within the company, they were the only ones to benefit from such an
arrangement.
[7] The work of the
worker was not supervised in any way. He had no schedule, worked the hours that
he wanted to, was absent when he wanted, and for as long as he wanted, and did
not have to report to anyone. He was, with good reason, considered the owner of
the business, as was acknowledged by his father, the majority shareholder.
[8] In contrast to the
other employees, the worker's hours of work were not recorded, but this does
not mean that the company did not benefit from his long hours of work.
Sometimes, during renovations to the store, he would remain in the store for up
to 36 hours straight. Depending on the season, he could work up to 100 hours in
a week. He was the one who often had to get up at night to check whenever the
alarm system was triggered. He also, on occasion, had to stay up all night
supervising repairs to equipment, such as compressors.
[9] Normand Duchemin,
the father of the worker and the majority shareholder, stated at the hearing
that he did not know the worker's schedule, but that he knew that he took more
time to be with his children. Moreover, Mr. Duchemin, the father, stated that
he did not know how many employees the company had. He acknowledged that work, such
as that performed by the worker, was never finished. He also confirmed that the
worker did not have to report to anyone, that he had a free hand in everything,
that he was the one who made all the decisions and that he was in agreement
with that, because it was his business: "It's the children's
business" he stated.
[10] The majority
shareholder acknowledged that the worker spent time at the business owned by his
mother and his sister, and in Chomedy, where his brothers operated another food
store. The evidence also revealed that the worker visited Alimentation Duchemin
et Lacase on a regular basis in an advisory capacity. That business is
operated by his father and an associate.
[11] It was established
that the worker did a lot of work at his home, where he was equipped with a
computer which he used over 50% of the time for the business. That was also
where he prepared his advertising for the ethnic products that he stocked in
the store. He had acquired a digital camera at a cost of over $500 and took between
500 and 1,000 photos during the period at issue, all in preparing the
advertising for his products. He did all that at his own expense. When he was at
home, in the evenings and on weekends, he responded to emergencies caused by
mechanical breakdowns and the triggering of the alarm.
[12] The worker uses his
own vehicle in the performance of his duties, although he occasionally also
uses the vehicles belonging to the Appellant. He has a company credit card for
his personal use and is not supervised or controlled in any way; he is the one
who controls it.
[13] The evidence
revealed that the worker receives four weeks' vacation annually but, unless he
is travelling abroad, he visits the store anyway. He, himself, decides when he
takes his vacation. He also receives unlimited sick leave, while the other
employees are entitled to only four days' paid sick leave per year. The worker
has sole signing authority for the business.
[14] Normand Duchemin
testified at the hearing that since 1993 he no longer had the final say, but
the worker and his brothers did. With regard to the Appellant, Mr. Duchemin, the
father, acknowledged that the worker has a free hand: "If he makes
mistakes, regardless at what level, that's his problem," he stated. He
also stated that the worker had made a number of decisions with which he disagreed,
even though these decisions had, in the final analysis, proved to be farsighted
and profitable. He gave as an example the decision to launch into the ethnic
food market, which was the reason for the purchase of the food store in
Chomedy, an initiative which he considered much too big for the worker and his
brothers. When he was asked during the cross-examination whether he believed
that the work of the worker outside the business had been detrimental to the
Appellant, he replied that, in his opinion, it had had a detrimental effect on
the operations, but he had nonetheless allowed him to do so. He added that
since 1993 he had never opposed any of the worker's plans. He stated: "I
have not contradicted him on a single occasion since 1993".
[15] In his Reply to the
Notice of Appeal, the Minister states that the worker had no financial risk in
the performance of his duties for the Appellant. The worker expressed his total
disagreement with this statement and maintained that performing his duties was crucial
to the business and to his personal financial interest, since if the business
did not operate efficiently, it would have to cease operations, which could potentially
result in his own financial ruin.
[16] The evidence
revealed that the position held by the worker commanded a salary at this point
of approximately $1,100 a week, without bonuses, while the worker with his
salary earned approximately $1,950 a week, and that he set his own salary. The
majority shareholder acknowledged in his testimony that he earned that much
because he was his son, quite simply.
[17] The Deputy Attorney
General cited paragraphs 5(1)(a) and 5(2)(i) and sections 91 and
93 of the Employment Insurance Act, S.C. (1996) c. 23 (the "Act"),
as well as sections 251 and 252 of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. (19850,
c. 1 (5th supplement), amended.
[18] He maintains that
the worker held insurable employment during the period at issue, as this
employment was performed under the terms of a contract of service, within the
meaning of paragraph 5(1)(a) of the Act.
[19] He further maintains
that this employment was insurable as it was not covered by paragraph 5(2)(i)
of the Act. In fact, the Appellant and the worker are deemed to be at arm's
length in the context of this employment, as the Minister was satisfied that it
was reasonable to conclude, having regard to all the circumstances, that they
would have concluded a virtually similar contract of work had they been dealing
at arm's length.
[20] The Appellant is
asking this Court to overturn the decision of the Minister. But before
proceeding to analyze the employment of the worker under paragraph 5(1)(a)
of the Act, it is necessary to examine it from the perspective of
paragraph 5(3)(b) of the Act, since the worker and the Appellant
are related within the meaning of section 251 of the Income Tax Act, as
the Minister agreed, since the employment of the worker is excluded under
paragraph 5(2)(i) of the Act. The following is an excerpt from
the applicable Act:
INSURABLE EMPLOYMENT
5. (1) Subject to subsection (2),
insurable employee is:
(a) employment in
Canada by one or more employers, under any express or implied contract of
service or apprenticeship, written or oral, whether the earnings of the
employed person are received from the employer or some other person and whether
the earnings are calculated by time or by the piece, or partly by time and
partly by the piece, or otherwise;
...
(2) Insurable employment does not
include:
...
(i) employment if the
employer and employee are not dealing with each other at arm's length.
...
(3) For the purposes of paragraph (2)(i):
...
(b) if the employer
is, within the meaning of that Act, related to the employee, they are deemed to
deal with each other at arm's length if the Minister of National Revenue is
satisfied that, having regard to all the circumstances of the employment,
including the remuneration paid, the terms and conditions, the duration and the
nature and importance of the work performed, it is reasonable to conclude that
they would have entered into a substantially similar contract of employment if
they had been dealing with each other at arm's length.
[21] The circumstances of
the employment of the worker were the subject of the testimony of the worker
and of the majority shareholder at the hearing. I have reproduced above in
these reasons the relevant portion of this testimony. I must say that the
Appellant submitted evidence which successfully refuted many of the assumptions
of fact stated by the Minister.
[22] This Court, faced
with a task similar to the one, in the instant case, expressed itself as
follows in Putter v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue – M.N.R.) [2000] T.C.C. No. 92, in
the words of Judge Rowe:
I do not intend to reiterate the evidence
in the within appeals because I have examined it in the course of the process
leading up to my decision to intervene. It is reasonable to conclude that after
21 years and 15 years with the corporation, David and Daniel Putter,
respectively, were not employed under circumstances – including consideration
of their payment of salary (below industry standard), the amount of work
performed, lack of holiday time, the ability to control their remuneration, the
absence of any need to follow dictates of corporate structure in accordance
with majority shareholding by others and, over the course of many years,
putting themselves at personal risk for company debt, clearly established that
they would not have entered into a similar contract of employment with Equinox
if they had been dealing with the corporation at arm's length. It strikes me as
difficult – on an objective basis – to assess whether it is reasonable to
conclude that the parties would have entered into a substantially similar
contract of employment unless there is some evidence before the Minister as to
comparable salaries or working conditions within the same – or related –
industry. There is obviously room for using a yardstick against which a
particular employment is to be measured because the alternative would be to
permit the parties themselves to put forward the proposition that,
notwithstanding the deviation from normal business practices in a similar
marketplace, they would still have entered into the contract of employment on a
purely subjective basis. Certainly, that is how the process works when the shoe
is on the other foot and benefits have been denied to claimants because their
conditions of work for a related employer do not - when all the facts have been
considered – measure up to the usual or normal conditions that applied – or
could be expected to apply - to non-related workers under a substantially
similar contract of employment.
[23] The preceding
passage is particularly relevant in view of the fact that Counsel for the
Minister at the hearing cast doubt on the statements by the witnesses for the
Appellant, because they had not made them known beforehand.
[24] The Federal Court of
Appeal in Légaré v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue – M.N.R.),
[1999] F.C.A. No. 878 ruled on the role of that Court, which was entrusted with
deciding a case like that in the case at bar, in the following terms:
... In fact, the Act confers the power of review on the
Tax Court of Canada on the basis of what is discovered in an inquiry carried
out in the presence of all interested parties. The Court is not mandated to
make the same kind of determination as the Minister and thus cannot purely and
simply substitute its assessment for that of the Minister: that falls under the
Minister's so-called discretionary power. However, the Court must verify
whether the facts inferred or relied on by the Minister are real and were
correctly based having regard to the context in which they occurred, and after
doing so, it must decide whether the conclusion with which the Minister was
"satisfied" still seems reasonable.
[25] Judge Archambault of
this Court also added his clarifications as to the rights and duties of an
Appellant when he disputed the Minister's assumptions. He wrote as follows in
paragraph 33 of 9033-9979 Québec Inc. v. Canada (Minister of National
Revenue – M.N.R.), [2000] T.C.J. No. 788:
[TRANSLATION]
Paragraph 41 of the same
decision also specifies on whom it falls to challenge the assumptions of fact
on which the Minister relied in making his decision: [Attorney General of Canada
v. Jencan Ltd., [1998] 1 F.C. 187, [1997] F.C.J. 876]:
Although the claimant, who is the party
appealing the Minister's determination, has the burden of proving its case, this
Court has held unequivocally that the claimant is entitled to bring new
evidence at the Tax Court hearing to challenge the assumptions of fact relied
upon by the Minister.
[26] Judge Margeson of
this Court in Bayside Drive-In Ltd. v. Canada (Minister of National
Revenue – M.N.R.) [1997] T.C.J. No. 1212, described at paragraph 33 a
situation analogous to that being analyzed by this Court in the case at bar, when
he wrote as follows:
In argument, the agent for
the Respondent took the position that all of the shareholders performed
services for the business when they were not on the payroll. All related
employees were paid on the basis of salaries irregardless of the number of
hours that they worked. All related employees received vacation. Unrelated employees
were paid on an hourly basis. Their records of hours were kept. They were only
paid for the hours that they worked. They were paid the minimum wage. They were
paid a vacation pay under the Vacation Pay Act rather than being given
vacation like the related employees were. There were no set hours for the
Appellants and no record of their hours was kept. They received the same pay
regardless of the hours that they worked.
[27] Judge Alain Tardif,
of this Court, ruled similarly when he found that the work of the Intervener
more closely resembled that of the owner of a business than that of an employee
in D'Orsay Restaurant Pub Inc. v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue –
M.N.R.), [2004] T.C.J. No. 465, in the following terms:
[7] She was responsible for
hiring, training and dismissing most of the employees of the business.
[8] She could be absent at any
time and plan her work around her family and personal concerns, as she wished
and at her own convenience, without having to ask anyone's permission.
[9] Whereas all employees'
absences due to illness had to be justified by a medical certificate, the
Intervener did not have to explain or give reasons for absences due to medical
or any other reasons.
[10] When absent, employees saw
their wages cut by an amount consistent with the duration of the absence. The
Intervener stated that she had received the same salary regardless of her hours
of work or the duration of her absence.
[11] At one point, the Intervener
received a $17,000 pay increase justified on the grounds of an improved
standard of living in view of the fact that business was good. The wages of the
other employees were based on their experience and ability, not at all on the
prosperity of profits of the business.
[...]
[20] The weight of the evidence is that
the work performed by the Intervener for the Appellant was in no way similar or
comparable to that which the other employees performed or which a person
responsible for the same administrative work should or could have performed. The
Intervener's conditions of employment were much more comparable to those of an
owner or co-owner of a business than those of an employee.
[28] In support of his
claims, the agent for the Appellant cited Edward Bergen v. Canada (Minister of National
Revenue – M.N.R.), [2002] T.C.J. No. 73 of this Court, where facts very similar
to those in the case at bar were reviewed by Deputy Judge Porter.
[29] In reaching his
decision, in Bergen, supra, the Judge also relied on the fact that the economic
interests of the Appellants were inextricably linked to those of the
corporation, as is the case here, between the worker and the Appellant. He
expressed himself in these terms:
[63] I do not intend to set out all
of the evidence again. I have already referred to the significant facts. It is
clear in my mind, that the two brothers were the company. Their economic
interests were inexorably bound up with those of the company. Although perhaps
they signed the guarantees in their capacities as shareholders or directors,
the fact that they did so shows an inextricably inter-woven relationship
between the company and the brothers. Their economic interests were tied to the
company and those of the company were tied to theirs, to such an extent that it
could not be said that there was an independent or adverse economic interest
existing between them. They were the operating mind of the company, they
themselves were related and had a common family economic interest, which was
indivisible from that of the company. This is exactly the situation
contemplated by Parliament in setting up the unemployment insurance scheme, to
exclude persons, who are operating or controlling their own businesses, in an
entrepreneurial fashion, from participating in that scheme and being able to claim
benefits if their employment fails.
[30] This Court again
addressed a situation involving an arm's-length relationship in Marché du
Faubourg Ste-Julie Inc. v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue –
M.N.R.) [2003] T.C.J. No. 513, where Judge Dussault excluded from insurable
employment the work of employees who were working in the following
circumstances:
[19] When talking about the tasks or
the responsibilities that are given to them, the remuneration, the salary and
bonus, (both items must be taken into account), the work timetable, sick
leaves, the advantages they enjoyed, courses, conventions, trips, use of credit
cards, all these conditions, I have seen almost nothing in the evidence that I
have heard today that make the work conditions of these two individuals similar
to those of the other managers in the same store.
[20] We could also discuss the
guarantees that were given by these individuals, of life insurance, all in all,
I am not going to repeat all the evidence that I heard today. In my opinion,
there is almost nothing similar.
[21] So, why do they have all these
conditions that are very different from those of the other employees? Well, it
is by virtue of the non-arm's length relationship, obviously, this non-arm's
length relationship coming from the fact that they are related to the company.
[31] Of course, each case
is a separate one. I believe, however, that the decisions cited, are
sufficiently similar, barring a few differences, to produce the same result.
[32] In concluding this analysis,
the Court must conclude that the Appellant has discharged the burden of proof
that was upon it by proving that several of the Minister's assumptions were
wrong, such that this Court, after checking the facts assumed or retained by
the Minister, must conclude that these were not properly evaluated, in view of
the context in which they occurred. Therefore, the conclusion with which the
Minister was satisfied no longer seems reasonable.
[33] For the reasons
cited above, the Court concludes that the employment of the worker is excluded
from insurable employment in accordance with paragraph 5(2)(i) of the Act
and that the Minister erred in concluding that the Appellant and the worker
should be deemed to be dealing with each other at arm’s length in the context
of this employment, in accordance with paragraph 5(3)(b) of the Act.
[34] For all these
reasons, the appeal is allowed and the decision of the Minister is vacated.
Signed at Grand-Barachois, New Brunswick, this 5th day of May, 2005.
"S.J. Savoie"
Translation certified true
on this 31st day of March, 2006.
Garth
McLeod, Translator
Email this Content