|
Citation: 2004TCC743
|
|
Date: 20041126
|
|
Docket: 2004-1221(EI)
|
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
JOSEPHINE LACROIX,
|
|
Appellant,
|
|
and
|
|
|
|
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
|
|
Respondent.
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered orally from the bench at St. Catharines,
Ontario on September 30, 2004.
Sheridan, J.
[1] The Appellant, Josephine Lacroix,
is appealing from the decision of the Minister of National
Revenue under the Employment Insurance Act. Her claim for
benefits was denied on the basis that she was not at arm's length
from her employer and it was reasonable for the Minister to
conclude that Ms. Lacroix and her employer would not have entered
a "substantially similar" contract of employment if they had been
dealing with each other at arm's length"[1].
[2] Ms. Lacroix's husband, Daniel
Lacroix, acted as her agent at the hearing. Both he and Ms.
Lacroix testified. I found them to be credible witnesses, both
knowledgeable and forthcoming in the presentation of their
evidence. Ms. Lacroix was cross-examined by counsel for the
Respondent. She described her duties at the flooring business. It
was a small business requiring all workers to pitch in and do
whatever was needed to make the enterprise a success. From her
testimony, it was clear that this was Ms. Lacroix's approach to
her work; there was nothing to suggest her duties were more or
less onerous than those of her arm's length co-workers.
During the period under appeal, her husband held 50 per cent of
the shares. After an unhappy breakdown in the business
relationship, however, Mr. Lacroix sold his shares to his
partner in the business. Ms. Lacroix was "let go" by the new
management.
[3] Upon the conclusion of her
evidence and after hearing Mr. Lacroix's direct evidence, counsel
for the Respondent submitted to the Court that this was a case
where the appeal ought to be allowed. Being satisfied on the
basis of the evidence heard that it was not reasonable for the
Minister to have reached the conclusion he did, and in light of
the Respondent's position, I am allowing the appeal and the
Minister's decision is vacated.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 26th day of November 2004.
"G. Sheridan"
________________________________
Sheridan, J.
|
COURT FILE NO.:
|
2004-1221(EI)
|
|
STYLE OF CAUSE:
|
Josephine Lacroix and H.M.Q.
|
|
PLACE OF HEARING:
|
St. Catharines, Ontario
|
|
DATE OF HEARING:
|
September 30, 2004
|
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:
|
The Honourable Justice G. Sheridan
|
|
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
|
November 6, 2004
|
|
Agent for the Appellant:
|
Daniel Lacroix
|
|
Counsel for the Respondent:
|
John R. Shipley
|
|
For the Respondent:
|
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Canada
|
[1] Paragraph
5(3)(b) of the Employment Insurance Act.
Email this Content