Date: 20001117
Docket: 1999-3778-EI
BETWEEN:
SASKATCHEWAN INTERCULTURAL ASSOCIATION INC.,
Appellant,
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent.
Reasons for Judgment
Rowe, D.J.T.C.C.
[1]
The appellant, Saskatchewan Intercultural Association Inc. (SIA),
appealed from a decision issued by the Minister of National
Revenue (the "Minister") dated June 17, 1999 wherein
the Minister decided Heather Anwender-Rempel (the
"worker") was engaged in insurable employment with the
appellant pursuant to a contract of service during the periods
from January 16, 1998 to June 30, 1998 and from July 14, 1998 to
October 16, 1998.
[2]
Lee Foster testified he has been the Program Manager of SIA since
June, 1998 and is responsible for the day-to-day operations of
the appellant. His status is that of employee and he reports to
the Board of Directors. He was present for a portion of the
period at issue in the within appeal. SIA is incorporated under
the Non-Profit Corporations Act of the Province of
Saskatchewan. Its mandate is to pursue multi-cultural and
cross-cultural activities among 75 diverse ethnic groups as well
as assisting new immigrants to Saskatchewan. Funding is provided
by all three levels of government as well as from private
foundations. The Province of Saskatchewan - in response to a
proposal put forward by the previous Program Manager of the
appellant - provided funding for the contracts at issue in the
within appeal. The worker entered into three separate contracts
with the appellant as follows: Exhibit A-1 - contract dated
January 16, 1998; Exhibit A-2 - contract dated July 14, 1998;
Exhibit A-3 - contract dated July 14, 1998. Foster explained that
Exhibit A-3, although dated July 14, 1998, was signed by the
parties on August 27, 1998 and was not intended to take effect
until September 30, 1998 with an expiration date of September 30,
1999 and provided for payment - in total - of $3,200.00 to the
worker. The other 52-week contract - Exhibit A-2 - signed on the
same date - would expire on June 30, 1999. In the
contracts, the title of the worker varies from: Project
Assistant/Instructor to Project Instructor to Project
Coordinator. However, Foster stated the function of the worker
remained the same throughout. The grantor of the funds does not
specify whether the status of the worker is to be that of
employee or independent contractor. Ms. Anwender-Rempel ceased
working for the appellant in May, 1999 before the term stated in
the contracts - Exhibit A-2 and Exhibit A-3 - had expired. The
balance of the payment due pursuant to the contract was
negotiated and a new person was hired - as a consultant - to
finish off the remaining work which was estimated as requiring an
additional 1.5 months. SIA operated out of an office rented from
the Saskatoon School Division. The office was furnished with the
usual furniture and equipment including computer, printer,
scanner, fax machine, telephones, supplies and resource
materials. The appellant raised funds through sale of memberships
and also generated revenue from providing translation and
consulting services. The annual budget of SIA was approximately
$165,000 and from time to time is required to use a small surplus
for operating expenses until funding from a new source is in
place. On March 30, 2000, the appellant had two full-time
employees together with three other persons working on specific
projects. The Auditor's Report And Financial Statements of
SIA - dated March 31, 2000 - was filed as Exhibit A-4. The work
required of Anwender-Rempel was to complete the project as
structured within the time frames specified in the contract. This
process involved some classroom instruction as well as workshops
and SIA provided no support staff, per se, to assist her in
fulfilling the terms of each contract. The worker did not have
fixed office hours but Foster stated he would see her nearly
every day during the first part of a project and then not as
often during the latter stages. The office hours of SIA were from
8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and Anwender-Rempel had her own computer,
printer and telephone at her own residence so she could carry out
some of her work away from the SIA office. The projects were
designed to assist foreign-born professionals to enter into the
workplace and 10 candidates were chosen to participate in a
program similar to an internship. Foster stated the assumption
contained at paragraph 9(t) of the Reply to the Notice of Appeal
was incorrect as computer training was not carried out at the
premises occupied by the appellant. Instead, computer training
was done at Kelsey Institute pursuant to a contract between
that institution and SIA that has been negotiated by
Anwender-Rempel. Advertisements were placed in local papers
and posters were printed and distributed in an effort to attract
recruits for the project and the cost was taken out of funds
allotted for that purpose. A grantor providing funds to a project
supplied the money in stages and, before the final amount would
be paid over to SIA, it was necessary to provide the grantor with
a report concerning the administration of the funded project. The
worker was required to complete the report which was then
submitted to the Program Manager of SIA who would then follow
through with the formal request for the balance of funds due from
the grantor. The funds which were used to carry out the project
encompassed by the contract dated January 16, 1998 - Exhibit A-1
- arrived by means of four separate equal payments. As a result,
payments to the worker were also subject to periodic payments
beginning with an initial amount of $500.00 on January 16, 1998
and then continuing at the rate of $1,616.00 per month thereafter
until May 15, 1998 with a final payment due on June 30, 1998
after all written reports had been submitted to the SIA office.
This contract did not contain any termination clause but the
subsequent ones - Exhibits A-2 and A-3 - provided for termination
of those contracts following the provision of six weeks written
notice by either party. The wording of clause 2(b) in Exhibit A-2
required receipt of a final report - from the worker - concerning
a particular phase of the project prior to payment being made to
her for that portion of the contract. While there was no specific
workspace assigned to the worker, she was able to use the general
work area and the equipment, as needed. The budget for each
project contained a certain amount to be used for the purchase of
supplies, as required, and the worker was not expected to provide
any of her own supplies or materials to be used in the project.
While working on projects for SIA, Foster stated Anwender-Rempel
had also entered into a contractual relationship with another
organization whereby she taught English as Second Language (ESL)
courses at Estey School. As for the projects undertaken by SIA,
they were only a small part of the organization's overall
operations in that the appellant served as the umbrella entity
for 28 different language schools operated by community
non-profit groups. SIA was also involved in supporting 45
different performing arts groups and carried out equity and
anti-racism programs in the form of workshops and seminars. In
addition, SIA coordinated a program whereby the University of
Saskatchewan issued certificates to foreign-language teachers as
well as being involved with a Heritage Language Program where
classes were held in various public schools. The task of SIA was
to book the space, advertise the programs and provide information
to callers. Any fees for participating in a language program were
paid directly to the particular school. As for evaluating the
project carried out by Anwender-Rempel, the candidates
participating in the programs were requested to provide feedback
on the project undertaken by her. At the request of the worker,
SIA requested a ruling on her working status.
[3]
In cross-examination, Lee Foster agreed that in the financial
statement - Exhibit A-4 - the entry under the category for
salaries in the expense sheet referred to the Program Manager and
the other full-time employee. Foster was referred to a
Questionnaire - Exhibit R- 1- completed by William Kalmakoff on
behalf of the appellant. Foster agreed one of the functions of
the Program Manager was to liase between the Board of Directors
and the individual undertaking a particular project pursuant to a
contract to ensure funding guidelines were adhered to and to keep
the Board aware of events. When a list of candidates for a
program had been prepared, Foster stated it was presented to him
- as a courtesy - by Anwender-Rempel. He had never sat in on any
of her teaching sessions and at the end of a project she provided
him with a report for his perusal. Foster was referred to Exhibit
A-1 and the clause at paragraph 1(j) requiring the worker to
"assist with performing general clerical duties - typing,
mail-outs, reception, filing, etc.". Foster stated the
reference was intended to apply only to this type of work being
performed by Anwender-Rempel as it applied to the project being
carried out by her. Foster agreed the statement - at paragraph 6
- in the Notice of Appeal that the worker was not required to
personally carry out the services forming the subject matter of
the contract was mainly referring to her ability to contract out
- to others - certain portions of the project, if needed. When
Anwender-Rempel notified SIA of her intention to leave before the
last contract had expired, she suggested a worker as a
replacement and payment was made to that person from the balance
due to her under the contract. She had given SIA about 4 weeks
notice of her desire to accept a full-time job with another
organization carrying on a similar type of work. The final
payment to the worker was based on the days worked by her during
the last month.
[4]
William Kalmakoff testified he was on the Board of Directors of
the appellant during the relevant period until his term expired
in May, 2000. Prior to his retirement in 1987, he had been
employed as Regional Director of Education for the North
Battleford School Division. Following retirement, he was actively
involved with the Saskatchewan Doukhobour Society and other
groups. There had been a project funded by a grant from the
provincial government but the original person in charge had
departed for other opportunities so advertisements were placed in
order to seek a replacement. The mandate was to provide training
to foreign-trained individuals in an effort to assist them in
finding employment in Canada. As a Director of SIA, he sat on the
interview committee together with the President and the Program
Director. Ms. Anwender-Rempel had run similar programs during her
career and she was chosen to complete the project. She had
presented her résumé - similar to the one used by
her - Exhibit A-5 - when applying for the second contract - when
responding to the SIA advertisement placed in a local newspaper.
Once she began working on the project, she placed an
advertisement - Exhibit A-6 - in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix
seeking qualified candidates for a work readiness/work placement
program from July-December, 1998. Kalmakoff stated he had not had
a lot of contact with the worker but the Board - at meetings -
would be presented with a report by the Program Manager which
provided an overview of ongoing projects. Kalmakoff was at the
SIA office once a week, on average. His understanding of the
working conditions applying to Anwender-Rempel was that she was
not required to work set hours but there were certain deadlines
to be met. The amount and type of training required depended on
the needs of the various applicants and could not be determined
in advance. Kelsey Institute carried out the computer training
and the Women's Immigrant Society conducted language
training. The worker carried out work at home using her own
computer and equipment but the SIA office was the means by which
people contacted her. During the course of discussions which led
to the contracts - Exhibits A-1, A-2 and A-3 - between
SIA and Anwender-Rempel - she had requested payments be made to
her monthly. In May, 1999, she indicated she wished to leave her
work at SIA and the Board was satisfied with the notice given by
her. The report to be provided to the grantor was completed by
the worker and her replacement. At one point, the appellant had
applied for funding for two separate projects but because
Anwender-Rempel held a B.Ed degree it was possible for her to
handle the project coordination as well as the instructional
component. As a result, the budgets for the two projects were
merged and SIA and the worker agreed on a satisfactory amount for
her compensation. Kalmakoff stated the grantor for a project
looks only to SIA for satisfaction of the terms and conditions of
the funding. Although the period covered by the decision of the
Minister extended only to October 16, 1998, Anwender-Rempel
actually worked at SIA until May 7, 1999.
[5]
In cross-examination, William Kalmakoff agreed the reference in
Exhibit A-1 to performing clerical duties related only
to that sort of work arising in the course of the worker carrying
out a project. It was never intended that she would be assigned
general office duties. The person in charge of the SIA office was
the Program Manager. The worker had the right to obtain
assistance from others with regard to certain portions of a
program but - as he had stated in paragraph 8 of the
Questionnaire - Exhibit R-1 - the contract for the project was
with the worker. Persons responding to the advertisement were
expected to apply to the SIA office. The placements of the
advertisements seeking participants in the program were paid for
directly by SIA and the only travel expense paid to the worker
was for an out-of-town trip. Kalmakoff stated the
projects carried out by the worker were apart from the normal
functions of the appellant through its staff which was not able
to handle the extra duties created by the projects. As a result,
the Board turned to hiring outside persons as independent
contractors. Any funds remaining once a particular project had
been completed were retained by the appellant and were later
expended in the course of its general mandate.
[6]
Counsel for the appellant submitted the worker was not under the
control of SIA in the sense of having to report to work at
specific times or to perform work in accordance with a set
schedule. She was able to do work away from the SIA office at her
own pace. In addition, counsel submitted the worker used many of
her own tools such as telephone, computer and printer and she was
able to work out of an office in her own home and carried out the
duties set forth in the various contracts at different locations.
As for the aspect of the chance of profit or risk of loss,
counsel pointed to the three contracts between the worker and SIA
as an indication that Anwender-Rempel must have assessed her
opportunity to earn a profit therefrom considering the time,
effort and cost of supplies and equipment in order to complete
the task. In considering the matter of integration, counsel
submitted that SIA - as an non-profit corporation - provided a
variety of programs for recent immigrants and unlike the
situation in certain other cases, in the within appeal, the
carrying out of specific projects in accordance with particular
funding mechanisms was not the raison d'être of the
appellant.
[7]
Counsel for the respondent submitted the worker - while not under
tight supervision - was still required to submit reports to the
Program Manager of the appellant and it was SIA that supplied the
tools, office space, equipment and the means by which other
training facilities owned and operated by other teaching
institutions would be made available to the particular projects.
As such, the worker had no chance of profit and risk of loss and
was not required to pay for any supplies or other expenses. In
addition, counsel submitted that even though SIA performed a
variety of services, the projects occupying the time and efforts
of the worker were significant to its overall operations and were
not merely peripheral.
[8]
In Wiebe Door Services Ltd. v. M.N.R., [1986] 2 C.T.C.
200, the Federal Court of Appeal approved subjecting the evidence
to the following tests, with the admonition that the tests be
regarded as a four-in-one test with emphasis on the combined
force of the whole scheme of operations. The tests are:
1. The Control Test
2. Ownership of Tools
3. Chance of Profit or Risk of Loss
4. The integration test
Control:
[9]
There was not much control exercised by the appellant in relation
to the day-to-day activities of the worker. She had been
hired/retained as a result of her expertise and held a degree in
education which permitted her to perform both parts of a task
which originally had been a two-part proposal with the intent of
having the work undertaken by two people. The terms of the three
contracts did not require much more of the worker than to
accomplish certain goals by following general guidelines and to
do so within a stated timeline. The fact that she reported to the
Program Manager so the Board of Directors could be kept aware of
the ongoing projects is not inconsistent with the requirements of
any independent consultant delivering professional services.
Apart from the terms of these contracts, the evidence did not
establish any fact pattern which would permit one to state the
working conditions clearly defined the worker's status,
although they lean toward supporting the view that in this
respect she was providing her services to SIA in her capacity as
an independent contractor even though it is recognized that a
professional assigned to accomplish a stated task is less likely
to be subject to ongoing supervision in the usual sense.
Tools:
[10] Although
the worker had a computer and related equipment and did perform
some work from her own home, the overwhelming component in this
regard was provided by the appellant. All potential applicants
for the advertised programs attended at the SIA office and these
individuals made contact with the worker in this manner. Certain
workspace was provided - or arranged for - by SIA and the
necessary supplies were provided by SIA through the funding of a
grant. The worker had access to the general office equipment and
supplies within the SIA office and to the telephone system and
reception facilities in order to maintain a communication channel
between herself and the people involved in the training programs.
Today, when nearly everyone has a personal computer at home -
serving both personal and employment/business needs - in order
that consideration of tools be examined in its proper context, I
would tend to confine the significance of owning this type of
equipment to circumstances where the primary reason for its
acquisition, up-grading, replacement and/or maintenance was
driven by the work or business component. In the within appeal,
the tools test favours the view the worker was an employee.
Chance of Profit or Risk of Loss:
[11] As
mentioned above, the cost of supplies was included in the budget
for a particular project and the worker was not required to bear
any expenses related thereto. Like any worker, she bore the cost
of operating her own vehicle in order to travel to work and she
chose to have a computer and equipment available in her work
space at home but this was not purchased by her specifically in
order to carry out the projects set forth in the three contracts.
The amount available to be paid to the worker pursuant to each
contract was a product of the budgetary process involved in
submitting the funding proposal to a grantor and was fixed - or
nearly so - as a result. There was no real opportunity for the
worker to earn more money, although if it took her more hours to
complete the stated tasks or to achieve the final goal, then her
return - per hour - would be diminished. The fact that
one project might provide her with a higher return per hour
- based on a 40-hour work week - than another one does not
indicate the presence of risk of loss in an entrepreneurial
sense. The worker was well aware that the money available to pay
her for services rendered - within a particular time frame - was
dependent on a process whereby SIA obtained funding from various
sources. While the method of payment utilized was not the usual
one where there is a wage or salary clearly linked to an hourly,
weekly or monthly unit or rate, throughout the working
relationship at issue in the within appeal, the parties clearly
regarded the remuneration as being paid - for the most part - in
equal amounts on the last day of each month. If piece work can be
considered as employment pursuant to a contract of service, then
payment for having performed a defined lump of work within a
particular time does not necessarily transform the
service-provider into an independent contractor. Sometimes, the
crumbs scattered to mark the trail will be strewn about by the
wind and it is the dominant course that must be ascertained when
examining these matters. Overall, with regard to this particular
test, the path leads towards the status of employee.
Integration:
[12] There is
no doubt that SIA was more than a one-trick pony. As a non-profit
corporation of some 30 years standing in Saskatoon, it provided a
variety of programs and acted as a liasing body to coordinate
many different programs all designed to carry out the mandate of
assisting immigrants to integrate into Canadian society and -
more specifically - to gain entry to the workforce. In terms of
language training, SIA acted as an umbrella organization and also
carried out important functions in the field of education and
anti-racism programs as well as providing a resource base for
persons wishing to retain the services of translators and
consultants for matters related to language or culture. SIA acted
in concert with the University of Saskatchewan in relation to a
program offering a certificate in language instruction to
qualified individuals.
[13] At p. 206
of his judgment in Wiebe, supra, MacGuigan, J.A.
stated:
"Of course, the organization test of Lord Denning and others
produces entirely acceptable results when properly applied, that
is, when the question of organization or integration is
approached from the persona of the "employee" and not
from that of the "employer," because it is always too
easy from the superior perspective of the larger enterprise to
assume that every contributing cause is so arranged purely for
the convenience of the larger entity. We must keep in mind that
it was with respect to the business of the employee that Lord
Wright addressed the question "Whose business is
it?"
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 at 738-39:
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.
There is no escape for the trial judge, when confronted with
such a problem, from carefully weighing all of the relevant
factors, as outlined by Cooke, J."
[14] The
method of payment was structured as though the worker was an
independent contractor and upon executing the contract dated
January 16, 1998 - Exhibit A-1 - she received the sum of $500.00.
Depending on one's point of view, that was either an advance
against future salary - as set forth in the contract - or a
retainer which had an initial sum paid contemporaneously with
execution of the contract thereafter requiring further payments
to be made in accordance with a schedule provided the work was
completed within certain timelines. In the event there was a
delay, the worker was still expected to complete the work at no
extra cost and payment - including the final amount - would
depend on the worker providing a satisfactory report which would
be the basis upon which SIA sought the balance of project funds
from the grantor. The second contract - Exhibit A-2 - dated July
14, 1998 did not result in the worker receiving any payment until
July 30, 1998 at which time she received the sum of
$1,560.00. Thereafter, she received the same amount on the last
day of each following month until the expiration of the project
on June 30, 1999. The third contract - Exhibit A-3 - also dated
July 14, 1998 did not call for any payment to the worker until
September 30, 1998 even though it commenced on July 14, 1998 and
was a 52-week mentorship project for which the worker was to
serve as the Project Instructor. The contract provided for a
payment to her in the sum of $1,600.00 on September 30, 1998 and
a further amount of $1,600.00 on March 30, 1999 for a total sum
of $3,200.00.
[15] In terms
of the question, "Whose business is it?", one must
consider that SIA was the body corporate capable of obtaining the
funding from various sources in order to carry out its mandate
and that one of its important purposes was to operate the type of
mentorship program which formed the subject of the three
contracts. Unless and until the funding was in place as a result
of the efforts of SIA, there was no project which would require
the services of the worker. The channels of communication
connected SIA to the grantor and the worker was required to
provide reports on accomplishments in order that payment could be
obtained for a specific phase. Certainly, an independent
contractor has to start somewhere and cannot always take on work
within the context of an up-and-running enterprise. At the same
time, it is reasonable to conclude that a newly-formed consulting
business cannot be expected to have the capital to hire employees
or to have expensive equipment and a high profile operation.
Indeed, the one-person operation may truly be run on the basis of
the owner being a jack of all trades. However, in the within
appeal, the worker was not required to have her own equipment and
the workspace required was either provided - or arranged for - by
SIA as well as contracting with other institutions for training
facilities and instruction, as required, and being responsible
for payment to that entity. It was clear the worker was expected
to perform the work personally, including the clerical duties
related to the specific program, but it was accepted that she was
free to contract with third parties to accomplish this aspect of
the overall work. The advertising for participants in the
projects was paid for directly by SIA and it was clearly stated
therein that:
"The Saskatchewan Intercultural Association will be
offering a work readiness/work placement program from
July-December 1998."
[16] It was
also indicated in the advertisement that participants could
qualify for a Provincial Training Allowance and they were
directed to apply for the program by submitting a
résumé‚ to the SIA office. Again, it must be
noted the expense of the publicity and related matters was borne
by SIA as a previously budgeted expense. Also discussed earlier,
I fail to see how the worker could have benefited from the sound
management of the task other than to obtain further work from
SIA. Any excess in funds resulting from successful completion of
a funded project was retained by SIA. There was no assumption of
financial risk and when she gave notice that she would not be
able to finish the last project set forth in the contract -
Exhibit A-3 - she located a suitable replacement and assisted
that person in completing the contract. SIA and the worker agreed
on a suitable amount - based on a percentage of the month
actually worked by her - to be deducted from her last payments in
view of the need for another person to act as a substitute for
the final period. This work was an important part of the overall
purpose and function of SIA and whoever performed it was doing it
in the context of it being an integral part of the business - in
the widest sense of that term - and not merely in a collateral
sense. By comparison, when SIA acted as an umbrella organization
and liased with various community groups who - in turn - provided
language instructors for a variety of classes, the fees were paid
by students directly to the language schools. In that sense, one
can see the difference between persons providing a service not
integral to an organization but merely as an accessory to it. On
occasion, SIA earned fees by providing translators or other
consultants to persons who might otherwise have had difficulty in
locating that particular expertise. In this manner, it was
generating revenue on its own account. Looking at the evidence,
it is apparent the evidence the worker was providing services
within the infrastructure established by the appellant and that
SIA was directly involved in the delivery of the specific
mentorship and employment training programs as a vital part of
its overall function. By example, one can look at the computer
training done by Kelsey Institute which was only a small part of
the mentorship program and was contracted for by SIA, as needed,
from time to time. The work done by Anwender-Rempel - including
being involved in the contracting out process for the computer
training - was a hands-on continuous function carried out for the
most part from the SIA facility or classrooms rented by it for
that purpose within the context of a complex funding process
involving three levels of government and private foundations. If
one looks at the working relationship from the standpoint of the
worker as disclosed by the evidence, it is difficult to see how
she would have been able to characterize herself as an
independent contractor.
[17] The
parties entered into three separate contracts intending that the
worker would be an independent contractor. However, the
jurisprudence is clear on this point. What the parties thought
their relationship was will not change the facts. In the case of
The Minister of National Revenue v. Emily Standing, 147
N.R. 238, Stone, J.A. at pages 239-240 stated:
"...There is no foundation in the case law for the
proposition that such a relationship may exist merely because the
parties choose to describe it to be so regardless of the
surrounding circumstances when weighed in the light of the
Wiebe Door test."
[18] Taking
into account the evidence and applying it in the manner directed
by the relevant jurisprudence, I conclude the decision of the
Minister is correct and it is hereby confirmed.
[19] The
appeal is dismissed.
Signed at Sidney, British Columbia, this 17th day of November
2000.
"D.W. Rowe"
D.J.T.C.C.
COURT FILE
NO.:
1999-3778(EI)
STYLE OF
CAUSE:
Saskatchewan Intercultural Association Inc.
and M.N.R.
PLACE OF
HEARING:
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
DATE OF
HEARING:
August 3, 2000
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: the
Honourable Deputy Judge D.W. Rowe
DATE OF
JUDGMENT:
November 17, 2000
APPEARANCES:
Counsel for the Appellant: Marvin Henderson
Counsel for the
Respondent:
Julie Rogers-Glabush
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For the
Appellant:
Name:
Marvin Henderson
Firm:
Henderson Campbell
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
For the
Respondent:
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Canada
1999-3778(EI)
BETWEEN:
SASKATCHEWAN INTERCULTURAL ASSOCIATION
INC.,
Appellant,
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent.
Appeal heard on August 3, 2000 at Saskatoon,
Saskaschewan, by
the Honourable Deputy Judge D.W. Rowe
Appearances
Counsel for the
Appellant: Marvin
Henderson
Counsel for the Respondent: Julie
Rogers-Glabush
JUDGMENT
The
appeal is dismissed and the decision of the Minister is confirmed
in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at Sidney, British Columbia, this 17th day of November
2000.
D.J.T.C.C.
Email this Content