Date: 20010423
Dockets: 2000-4377-CPP,
2000-4378-EI
BETWEEN:
KEN GOODALE AND PATRICIA GOODALE O/A GOOD
JANITORIAL,
Appellant,
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent.
Reasonsfor
Judgment
Porter, D.J.T.C.C.
[1]
These appeals were heard on common evidence by consent of the
parties on the 28th of March 2001 at Edmonton,
Alberta.
[2]
The Appellants have appealed the various decisions of the
Minister of National Revenue (the "Minister") dated
July 26, 2000 confirming assessments made upon the appellants for
employment insurance premiums and Canada Pension Plan
contributions for the period January 1 to December 31, 1998 and
from January 1 to February 28, 1999 in respect of a number of
different workers as set out in Appendices 1, 2 and 3 to this
Judgment. The amount of the assessments which was, in some cases,
modified by the Minister, is not an issue. The Appellants take
issue with the decisions of the Minister that these workers were
engaged under contracts of service and were
therefore employees. The position of the Appellants is that the
workers were engaged under contracts for services
as independent contractors. The decisions issued by the Minister
were issued pursuant to section 93 of the Employment Insurance
Act (the "EI Act") and section 27 of the
Canada Pension Plan (the "Plan") and
were based on paragraph 5(1)(a) of the EI Act
and subsection 6(1) of the Plan respectively. The
principles appear to be the same in the case of each worker.
[3]
The established facts reveal that the Appellants were in the
business of providing janitorial and snow removal services to
various businesses and government offices located in and around
the Wetaskiwin area, throughout the periods in question. They had
originally started the business and operated it themselves, but
due to the increase in business they engaged other workers to
assist in the provision of the services. They take the position
that these other workers were hired as independent contractors
under contracts for services. The Minister's
decisions were to the contrary. That is the issue before this
Court.
[4]
The manner in which the Court should go about deciding whether
any particular working arrangement is a contract of
service and thus an employer/employee relationship or a contract
for services and thus an independent contractor
relationship, has been clearly laid out by the Federal Court of
Appeal in Wiebe Door Services Ltd. v. M.N.R., 87 DTC 5025.
The test to be applied has been further explained by that Court
in Moose Jaw Kinsmen Flying Fins Inc. v. M.N.R., 88
DTC 6099. There are, following these cases, numerous decisions of
this Court, some of which have been cited by counsel, which
demonstrate how these appellate guidelines have been applied. In
the Moose Jaw Kinsmen Flying Fins Inc. case, above,
the Federal Court of Appeal said this:
"[Analysis]
The definitive authority on this issue in the context of the
Act, is the decision of this Court in Wiebe Door Services Ltd. v.
The Minister of National Revenue, 87 DTC 5025. MacGuigan J.
speaking on behalf of the Court, analyzed Canadian, English and
American authorities, and, in particular, referred to the four
tests, for making such a determination enunciated by Lord Wright
in City of Montreal v. Montreal Locomotive Works
Ltd., [1974] 1 D.L.R. 161 at 169-70. He concluded at page
5028 that:
Taken thus in context, Lord Wright's fourfold test
[control, ownership of tools, chance of profit, risk of loss] 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.
At page 5029 he said:
... 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.
At page 5030 he had this to say:
What must always remain of the essence is the search for the
total relationship of the parties.
He also observed "there is no escape for the trial judge,
when confronted with such a problem, from carefully weighing all
the facts."
... like MacGuigan J. we view the tests as being useful
subordinates in weighing all of the facts relating to the
operations of the Applicant. That is now the preferable and
proper approach for the very good reason that in a given case,
and this may well be one of them, one or more of the tests can
have little or no applicability. To formulate a decision then,
the overall evidence must be considered taking into account those
of the tests which may be applicable and giving to all the
evidence the weight which the circumstances may
dictate."
[5]
The nature of the tests referred to by the Court can be
summarized as follows:
a) The degree or absence of control exercised by the alleged
employer;
b) Ownership of tools;
c) Chance of profit and risk of loss;
d) Integration of the alleged employee's work into the
alleged employer's business.
[6] I
also take note of the further words of MacGuigan J., in the
Wiebe case, above, where he approved the approach taken in
the English courts:
"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, 738-9:
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 be taken, 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."
[7]
To this I would add the words of Décary, J.A. in
Charbonneau v. Canada (M.N.R.) [1996] F.C.J. No.
1337, where speaking for the Federal Court of Appeal he said
this:
"The tests laid down by this Court ... are not the
ingredients of a magic formula. They are guidelines which it will
generally be useful to consider, but not to the point of
jeopardizing the ultimate objective of the exercise, which is to
determine the overall relationship between the parties. The issue
is always, once it has been determined that there is a genuine
contract, whether there is a relationship of subordination
between the parties such that there is a contract of employment
... or, whether there is ..., such a degree of autonomy that
there is a contract of enterprise or for services. ... In other
words, we must not pay so much attention to the trees that we
lose sight of the forest. ... The parts must give way to the
whole."
[8]
The Appellant also cited to the Court the case of Vulcain
Alarme Inc. v. The Minister of National Revenue, (1999) 249
N.R. 1 in which the Federal Court of Appeal revisited the issue.
Létourneau J.A. said this:
"... These tests derived from case law are
important, but it should be remembered that they cannot be
allowed to compromise the ultimate purpose of the exercise, to
establish in general the relationship between the parties. This
exercise involves determining whether a relationship of
subordination exists between the parties such that the Court must
conclude that there was a contract of employment within the
meaning of art. 2085 of the Civil Code of Quebec, or
whether instead there was between them the degree of independence
which characterises a contract of enterprise or for
services...."
[9]He also said later in the same Judgment:
"A contractor who, for example, works on site on a
subcontract does not serve his customers but those of the payer,
that is the general contractor who has retained his services. The
fact that Mr. Blouin had to report to the plaintiff's
premises once a month to get his service sheets and so to learn
the list of customers requiring service, and consequently the
places where his services would be provided, does not make him an
employee. A contractor performing work for a business has to know
the places where services are required and their frequency just
as an employee does under a contract of employment. Priority in
performance of the work required of a worker is not the apanage
of a contract of employment. Contractors or subcontractors are
also often approached by various influential customers who force
them to set priorities in providing their services or to comply
with the customers' requirements."
he also said:
"... Although Mr. Blouin's income was
calculated on an hourly basis, the number of hours of work were
determined by the number of service sheets he received from the
plaintiff. Mr. Blouin and his company thus had no guaranteed
income. Unlike the technicians working as employees within the
plaintiff's business, whose weekly salary was constant, Mr.
Blouin's income fluctuated with the service calls. In fact,
towards the end of his contract with the plaintiff Mr. Blouin was
no longer doing the equivalent of forty hours a month as he was
receiving few service sheets.
Further, Mr. Blouin, who used his own vehicle for work, had to
pay the losses resulting from an accident in which he was
involved and obtain another vehicle."
The Facts
[10] The
Minister in the Replies to the Notices of Appeal was said to
admit the following facts:
a) The Appellants and each of them have been engaged in a
partnership known as Good Janitorial carrying on business in and
around Wetaskiwin, Alberta, since 1996.
These premises are open at varied hours. The janitorial
services must be performed after the close of business and before
the business is open for the next business day.
The Appellants have not taken any deductions for Canada
Pension Plan or Employment Insurance.
b) They are presently providing janitorial services to
fourteen (14) major enterprises in the Wetaskiwin area. These
include the Provincial Government, the City of Wetaskiwin and
several of the major car dealerships carrying on business in that
jurisdiction.
c) The Appellants obtained contracts to provide the janitorial
services through various methods including that of tendering on
government and other related projects.
d) The Appellants give general guidelines as to the nature of
the janitorial work that has to be performed for each client.
e) The Appellants do not supply daily supervision.
[11] In coming
to his decisions, the Minister was said in the Replies to the
Notices of Appeal signed on his behalf, to have relied upon the
following assumptions of fact:
"(a) the facts admitted above, some of which have been
repeated here for ease of reference;
(b) the Appellant is in the business of providing janitorial
and snow removal services to businesses located in and around
Wetaskiwin, Alberta;
(c) the Appellant hired the workers stated in "Schedule
A" and "Schedule B" (hereinafter the
"Workers") to perform the janitorial and snow removal
services for the clients of the Appellant;
(d) the Appellant did not enter into written contracts with
the Workers;
(e) except for Tom Muller, who was hired to provide snow
removal services only, the Workers were all hired to perform
janitorial services for the Appellant;
(f) the Workers performed their services at the place of
business of the clients of the Appellant;
(g) the Appellant provided the Workers with the keys to its
clients' place of business where the services were
performed;
(h) the Appellant provided the Workers with a list of daily,
weekly, monthly and semi-annual duties they were required to
perform;
(i) the Appellant paid the Workers by the hour, job or
month;
(j) the rate of pay that the Workers received was determined
by the Appellant;
(k) the Appellant did not require that the Workers submit an
invoice in order to be paid;
(l) although the Workers normally performed their duties from
Monday to Friday after the businesses of the Appellant's
clients had closed for the day, they sometimes performed their
duties on Saturday or Sunday as well;
(m) the Workers were required to perform their services while
the businesses of the Appellant's clients were closed;
(n) the Workers were required to perform their duties
personally;
(o) the Appellant instructed the Workers with respect to what
services were expected to be performed;
(p) the Workers work was subject to inspection by either the
Appellant or the building manager where the services were
performed;
(q) if the work was not done satisfactorily, the Workers were
required to redo the work;
(r) if the work of the Workers was not done satisfactorily,
the Workers could be subject to a reprimand or termination by the
Appellant.
(s) the Appellant was responsible for any problems with
respect to the work of the Workers;
(t) although one of the Workers may provide a piece of
equipment, generally the Appellant provided the Workers with all
the equipment necessary to perform their duties, including,
vacuum cleaners, floor shampooers, brooms, dust cloths and wash
cloths;
(u) the Appellant provided the Workers with the supplies
necessary to perform their duties, including soaps, cleaners,
bleaches and waxes, as the Appellant wanted to maintain a high
quality of the cleaning supplies that were used;
(v) the Workers did not incur, nor were they required to
incur, any expenses in the performance of their duties;
(w) most of the Workers were hired by the Appellant as a
result of responding to newspaper advertisements placed by the
Appellant;
(x) the Appellant paid the Workers' Compensation Board
premiums in respect of the Workers;
(y) the Workers were not required to bid on the jobs that they
did;
(z) the services performed by the Workers were an
indispensable and integral part of the Appellant's business
operations; and
(aa) the Workers did not charge or collect goods and services
tax from the Appellant in respect of the services performed by
them."
[12] The
Appellants agreed with items (a), (b), (c), (d), (f), (g), (k),
(l), (m), (o), (p), (q), (r), (z), and (aa).
[13] The
Appellants disagreed with the following items, namely: (e), (h),
(i), (j), (n), (s), (t), (u), (v), (w), (x), and (y).
[14]
Evidence was given by Ken Goodale on behalf of himself and his
wife, being the joint operators of this business. I had no
difficulty with his evidence. I felt that he was an honest
witness who quite naturally intended to look at the situation
strictly from his own point of view. Patricia Goodale did not
give evidence. The Minister called two of the workers, namely
Valerie Lange and Luann Hansen, both of whom I found to be quite
honest witnesses. It is apparent that there had been some level
of dispute between Luann Hansen and the Appellants, however, I
was of the view that she gave her evidence quite honestly.
[15] With
regard to items (h), (i), and (j), Ken Goodale said that the
amount paid for each job was really determined by the nature of
the building to be cleaned and the services that were required
therein. He would figure out how many hours he thought it would
take in a month to do the job and then apply a figure to that
amount and offer the job for that amount to one of the workers.
The worker was invited to attend and look at the premises and
either agree or disagree or negotiate on the figure offered. In
point of fact, the evidence seems to reveal that most workers
agreed with the figure that was offered to them and I have no
doubt that Mr. Goodale was always attempting to be quite fair
with his workers.
[16] With
respect to item (n), Mr. Goodale said that once the work was
assigned to a worker, he was not really concerned as to whether
they did it personally or had somebody else stand in for them or
help them as they saw fit. He really stressed that it was a
matter for them as long as the work was done and it was done to
the necessary standard required by the client.
[17] The
witness said that although he was responsible for any problems
with respect to the work of the workers, invariably he had no
knowledge of any problems as the clients would tend to leave
notes for the cleaners themselves. It was only if they had tried
to work it out with the workers at the site and nothing had been
achieved that he would be contacted by one of the clients. Then
he would either contact the worker or leave a note for them
indicating that he had been contacted and requesting whatever
service was to be performed as requested.
[18] The
Appellants disagreed with items (t) and (u). However, it is
apparent that on the whole, the equipment was either provided by
the Appellants or by the clients in their own premises. There was
apparently one worker who used his own vacuum cleaner and some
workers who wished to use particular cleaning materials. However,
on the whole, all of these items were provided by the Appellants
or by the client.
[19] With
respect to item (v), although the Appellants said they disagreed
with this item on the whole, it is quite apparent from the
evidence that the workers were not required to incur any expenses
other than travelling to and from their place of work.
[20] With
respect to item (w), the two workers called by the Minister, each
responded to newspaper advertisements placed by the Appellants.
However, it may have been because he was known in the business
that others approached him directly for contracts, but I did not
see any great divergence in the evidence in this respect.
[21] With
respect to item (x), it is apparent that the Appellants held a
blanket Workers' Compensation Board policy with respect to
all the workers working in the various premises on their
behalf.
[22] In giving
his evidence, the witness said that he and his wife had started
the business in 1993. By 1996, the business had grown
substantially so they needed some assistance. They presently have
some 14 accounts that they are operating in the City of
Wetaskiwin which vary from a museum to City Hall and a Provincial
Government building. He said that they tendered for most of the
contracts that they have. He said that they took out blanket
liability insurance and bonding for people working for them in
the various premises, as well as blanket coverage at the
Workers' Compensation Board. He said he did this because
individual people often could not get coverage, certainly not at
an economical rate. He said all his contracts with the workers
were verbal. He had no written contracts. He said none of the
workers charged G.S.T. and they did not send an invoice to him.
When the workers first approached him for a position, he said he
would go through the building with them, explain what was
expected of them, indicate a price that he thought it was worth,
and they were free if they wished to negotiate that with him, but
generally they tended to accept what he offered to them. Again,
he stressed that once they started working, he did not deal with
the clients unless things got serious. Generally the workers
dealt with those themselves at the client premises.
[23] The
witness said that they do not tell the workers how to dress. The
workers wore no badges or signage. They were paid no mileage or
travelling costs. They all had their own keys issued by the
clients or the codes from the clients' buildings to open
doors and deal with the question of alarms. If these were
changed, sometimes he would not know himself as it was left very
much up to the workers. The work generally was done after the
close of business in each of the premises. He had no knowledge
when they went in. They might go in at 4:30 p.m. when the other
employees left, or they might go in at 3:00 in the morning, and
that was of no concern to him, as long as the work was done prior
to the opening of business the following day. Some workers did
more than one building for him. For instance on Friday night, he
said he was not concerned whether they went in on Friday evening
or on Saturday or Sunday as long as the work was completed before
Monday morning. He was not concerned about how long or quickly
they did it because the price was always the same. He said a good
working person might do it quicker and then take on other
contracts; that was entirely a matter for them. He said it was
often some 5 to 6 weeks between times when he would visit a
building. The evidence from the witness for the Minister was that
the Appellant was seen more frequently than at the premises at
which they were working.
[24] The
witness stressed that the original deal with the workers was that
there would be no deductions and they would be responsible for
their own Canada Pension Plan and employment insurance premiums
and income tax.
[25] The
witness stressed again that sometimes he supplied the tools,
sometimes the buildings supplied the tools, and sometimes the
workers brought their own tools. On the whole from the evidence I
gleaned, however, that the majority of tools were either provided
by the client or by the Appellants. It was quite clear that the
Appellants provided most of the cleaning materials needed,
because they purchased good quality products which they could
obtain much more cheaply than could any individual worker. The
evidence from one of the workers was that if anything was short
in the way of materials, they would just let him know and he
would make sure that those materials were provided.
[26] The
witness agreed that basically he operated the business from his
home. The only qualification that the workers needed was to have
some experience in cleaning. In some buildings, they needed to
have a criminal record check which they were required to get from
the RCMP themselves before he would engage them. Again, he
stressed that if there were replacements for the workers that he
had engaged, that is if they brought replacements in for
themselves, he often would not even know about it.
[27] When
Valerie Lange gave evidence, it was clear that she pretty well
confirmed all that Mr. Goodale had said. She did not have any
other cleaning contracts. She considered herself his employee;
she incurred no expenses and she apparently did not report her
income to Revenue Canada, no doubt because this was her only
income and fell below any level on which she would have to pay
tax.
[28] Luann
Hansen said very much the same things. However, it is apparent
that she felt that both her husband and herself were hired to do
the job as a team rather than individuals. There was some
difficulty with their work and apparently Mr. and Mrs. Goodale
assisted them in the work they were doing and they in turn came
to the building that Mr. and Mrs. Goodale were doing and assisted
them in the work they were doing. This was at the direction of
Mr. and Mrs. Goodale. Again, she said that she did not declare
this income on her income tax return as she had no other
income.
[29] Those,
then are the salient facts as I find them.
Application of the 4 Part Test to the Facts
[30] It is not
so much the label put upon the arrangement by the parties that
the Court must consider as the substance of those arrangements.
Whilst the Court should no doubt give due deference to the type
of arrangement chosen by the parties if nothing in the evidence
tends to derogate from the substance of that arrangement, if in
fact the substance is not in accord with the label put upon the
arrangements by the parties, then it is the substance that the
Court must consider.
[31]
Control: When considering the matter of control, the Court
must consider not so much the actual control exercised by the
employer, but whether there was a right to control the worker.
The more professional, more capable any particular worker may be,
the less control may actually be exercised. Thus, it is the right
to control which must be considered in this aspect of the test.
In these cases, it appears that in the normal everyday situation,
there was a considerable degree of independence on the part of
the workers as to how they went about their work. They were shown
what the client required to have done. After that, the workers
were very much left to their own resources as to how they went
about their work, whom they took in with them to assist and when
they attended to their duties. They tended to handle complaints
themselves and it was only if matters became serious that either
Mr. or Mrs. Goodale would become involved. The significant point,
however, is that it was at that point that they could become
involved as they did with Mr. and Mrs. Hansen. They would
redirect their duties to other places and that the work be done
in a different manner. Thus, although there was a certain amount
of de facto independence from the Appellants, the workers,
in my view, still were significantly subject to being controlled
and directed by the Appellants if the latter so chose in any
particular circumstances. Whilst there is an element of
independence here, on balance, this aspect of the test tends to
point towards an employer-employee situation and a contract
of service, rather than a contract
for services with an independent contractor.
[32] Tools
and Equipment: There was very little evidence, if any, of a
provision of tools and equipment and materials by the workers.
There was a suggestion that one worker used his own vacuum
cleaner, but no details were forthcoming of that. On the other
hand, it is quite clear that either the Appellants or the clients
provided the equipment that was to be used in the various
premises in the vast majority of situations. In any event, there
was no suggestion that any of the workers incurred any
significant costs with respect to the provision of any tools,
equipment, materials or supplies. This aspect of the test, in my
view, clearly points to a contract of service
between the Appellants and the workers. Independent contractors
would be far more likely to have their own tools and equipment as
well as materials and supplies, which they would use on a regular
basis.
[33] Profit
and Loss: The pay accorded to the workers by the Appellants
was really by the piece. The building was assessed for what the
job was worth and that amount was paid for that building on a
monthly basis. It is true that is how the Appellants themselves
contracted with the clients as independent contractors.
Nonetheless, they had a business they were running. There were no
expenses incurred by any of the workers, other than the gas for
their motor vehicles to get to and from their place of work.
Whilst, if they worked efficiently and effectively, they might
have spent somewhat less time at each job than anticipated, they
were still only going to receive the same amount and they had
neither ongoing expenses to incur, nor any additional profits to
attain if they did so. They were simply paid for the job they
did. I see nothing of an entrepreneurial nature in these
situations which would lead me to a conclusion that they stood to
make a profit or were at risk of sustaining a loss in the
entrepreneurial sense of this aspect of the test. This test,
therefore, also in my view, points more towards a contract
of service than a contract for
services.
[34]
Integration: There is no doubt at all that the Appellants
were in business for themselves. The question rather to be asked
is whether or not the workers were in business for themselves
also, or was what they were doing really integrated into the
business of the Appellants? The question which has to be asked is
"whose business were the workers involved in?" There
is nothing that I have been able to glean from the evidence which
would lead me to the view that any of these workers were in
business for themselves in the entrepreneurial sense. It would
seem that most, if not all of them, responded to advertisements
placed by the Appellants in newspapers to do work for the
Appellants at and in premises of clients with whom the Appellants
had already entered into contracts. The question is whether they
were in business for themselves or whether they were really
part-time employees of the Appellants, paid by the piece. Quite
frankly, when I weigh all of the evidence, I am inclined to the
latter view. I do not have any doubt in my mind that
Mr. Goodale told each of them that they were independent
contractors and that they would be responsible for their own
statutory deductions. That, however, does not make them
independent contractors. It appears to be a popularly held
misconception among the general public that all that is required
is simply to say that a person will become an independent
contractor and they become so. Clearly, the law does not
correspond with that view. These were isolated work opportunities
for these workers and I see not one iota of evidence that would
suggest that any of them considered themselves to be in business
for themselves, rather than working for and in the business of
the Appellant. There was nothing which they were doing that had
any entrepreneurial aspect to it. The situation of the Hansens
being employed as a team is something of an anomaly, but
insufficient to detract from my overall view of the situation.
Mrs. Hansen was clearly the worker engaged. This aspect of
the test clearly, in my view, points to contracts
of service rather than contracts for
services.
Conclusion
[35] At the
end of the day, in this case, when I look not just at the
individual trees, all of which in my view, bear the markings of
contracts of services, but stand back and look at the whole
forest, I see only a picture of an employment situation and not
that of an independent contractor. In my view, there was not
sufficient entrepreneurial independence from the Appellants on
the part of the workers to say that they were engaged by way of
contracts for services.
[36] Before
concluding, I would allude briefly to the genuinely held belief
of Mr. Goodale that he was setting up the arrangement in a
perfectly correct fashion. As I say, it appears to be a publicly
held misconception that all one has to do is to say it is so in
order to make it so, whereas in fact the law does not correspond
with that. I have no doubts at all in my mind that the Appellants
proceeded genuinely and honestly in setting up the arrangements
that they did, believing them to be independent contracts for
services with subcontractors. The fact that this is now held not
to be so after a complete and thorough review of all of the
evidence now leaves them in a somewhat vulnerable situation to
pay significant premiums with, I am sure, interest and penalties
which will, no doubt, be a significant burden upon them. I
believe the Appellants acted in good faith in doing what they
did. They will be unable to collect the employee portion of these
premiums and contributions from the workers and this will simply,
by virtue of that, bear a substantial burden. They are
undoubtedly hard working people and I would respectfully urge the
Minister to tread lightly with respect to the imposition of
interest and penalties in final resolution of this matter.
[37] In the
result, the appeals are dismissed and the decisions of the
Minister are confirmed.
Signed at Calgary, Alberta, this 23rd day of April 2001.
"Michael H. Porter"
D.J.T.C.C.
Appendix 1
Kevin Goodale
Rochelle Mossop
Tom Muller
Val Pepin
James Read
Terry Rehaume
Rob Rowan
Steven Van Erp
Appendix 2
Darcy Barns
Judy Bedford
Dave Cowan
Velda Doward
Jamie Frank
Dave Hodgins
Tom Muller
Mike Oakes
Shirley Schachschnieder
Ken Yee
King Yee
Appendix 3
Christina Bablitz
Barb Churney
Darrel Day
Luann Hansen
Darrel Kaiser
Carolyn Klooster
Val Lange
Darren Larsen
Kurt Leicheit
Gayle Seim
Bart Silverthorne
Ross Wotherspoon
COURT FILE
NO.:
2000-4377(CPP)
STYLE OF
CAUSE:
Ken Goodale and Patricia Goodale o/a Good
Janitorial and M.N.R.
PLACE OF
HEARING:
Edmonton, Alberta
DATE OF
HEARING:
March 28, 2001
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:
The Honourable Deputy Judge M.H. Porter
DATE OF
JUDGMENT:
April 23, 2001
APPEARANCES:
Counsel for the
Appellant:
Russell A. Flint
Counsel for the
Respondent:
Gwen Mah
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For the
Appellant:
Name:
Russell A. Flint
Firm:
Snyder and
Company
Edmonton,
Alberta
For the
Respondent:
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, CanadaCOURT FILE
NO.:
2000-4378(EI)
STYLE OF
CAUSE:
Ken Goodale and Patricia Goodale o/a Good
Janitorial and M.N.R.
PLACE OF
HEARING:
Edmonton, Alberta
DATE OF
HEARING:
March 28, 2001
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:
The Honourable Deputy Judge M.H. Porter
DATE OF
JUDGMENT:
April 23, 2001
APPEARANCES:
Counsel for the
Appellant:
Russell A. Flint
Counsel for the
Respondent:
Gwen Mah
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For the
Appellant:
Name:
Russell A. Flint
Firm:
Snyder and
Company
Edmonton,
Alberta
For the
Respondent:
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Canada
2000-4377(CPP)
BETWEEN:
KEN GOODALE AND PATRICIA GOODALE O/A GOOD
JANITORIAL,
Appellant,
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent.
Appeal heard on common evidence with the appeal
of Ken Goodale and Patricia Goodale o/a Good
Janitorial (2000-4378(EI)) on March 28, 2001 at Edmonton,
Alberta, by
the Honourable Deputy Judge Michael H.
Porter
Appearances
Counsel for the Appellant:
Russell A.
Flint
Counsel for the Respondent:
Gwen
Mah
JUDGMENT
The
appeal is dismissed and the decision of the Minister is confirmed
in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at Calgary, Alberta, this 23rd day of April 2001.
D.J.T.C.C.
Email this Content