Lambropoulos v. M.N.R., docket 97-1092-UI

Date: 20000515

Dockets: 97-1092-UI; 97-1136-UI

BETWEEN:

THEODORA LAMBROPOULOS, PARASKEVI HADJINIKITA,

Appellants,

and

THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,

Respondent,

Reasons for Judgment

Cuddihy, D.J.T.C.C.

[1] These appeals were heard on common evidence at Montréal, Quebec, on March 16, 2000.

I- The Appeals

[2] The appellants have instituted appeals from the determinations by the Minister of National Revenue (the "Minister") dated March 21, 1997, that the employment of Theodora Lambropoulos (the "janitorial worker") from June 1 to December 31, 1993, and that of Paraskevi Hadjinikita (the "secretarial worker") from December 1, 1991 to July 24, 1992, with Five Brothers Investments Ltd. (the "payer") was not insurable within the meaning of the Unemployment Insurance Act (now the Employment Insurance Act) (the "Act") since there existed between the appellants and the payer no contract of service within the meaning of paragraph 3(1)(a) of the former Act and paragraph 5(1)(a) of the new Act during those periods.

II- Summary of Facts

[3] In his Replies to the Notices of Appeal, the respondent submitted the facts on which he based his determinations. Paragraph 5 of his Replies in appeals Nos. 97-1092(UI) and 97-1136(UI) respectively reads as follows:

Theodora Lambropoulos (97-1092(UI))

"a) the Payer has been incorporated in 1977;

b) the Payer's only shareholder and director is Mr. Mickael Tsakalis;

c) since 1991, the Payer is the owner of only 2 properties, located at 1480 and 1490 Painter Circle in Ville St-Laurent;

d) the properties are 12 and 15 apartment buildings, respectively;

e) the Appellant claims that she worked for the Payer as a janitor, when, in fact, she did not render any services to the Payer;

f) the Appellant and the Payer are parties to a sham to qualify the Appellant for unemployment insurance benefits;

g) there was no contract of service between the Appellant and the Payer."

Paraskevi Hadjinikita (97-1136(UI))

[TRANSLATION]

"(a) the payer was incorporated in 1977;

(b) the payer's sole shareholder and director is Mickael Tsakalis;

(c) since 1991, the payer has owned only two properties, located at 1480 and 1490 Painter Circle in Ville St-Laurent;

(d) these properties are respectively 12- and 15-apartment buildings;

(e) the appellant claims that, during the period at issue, she worked for the payer as a secretary when, in fact, she rendered no services to the payer;

(f) the payer and the appellant entered into an arrangement to qualify the appellant for unemployment insurance benefits;

(g) there was no contract of service between the appellant and the payer during the period at issue."

[4] In appeal No. 97-1092(UI), the appellant Theodora Lambropoulos admitted, through her counsel, the facts alleged in subparagraph (d). She knew nothing of the facts alleged in subparagraphs (a) to (c) and denied those alleged in subparagraphs (e) to (g).

[5] In appeal No. 97-1136(UI), the appellant Paraskevi Hadjinikita admitted the facts alleged in subparagraphs (c) and (d), knew nothing of those alleged in subparagraphs (a) and (b) and denied those alleged in subparagraphs (e) to (g).

III - The Law

[6] (i) Definitions from the Unemployment Insurance Act

"employment"

"employment" means the act of employing or the state of being employed.

"insurable employment"

"3(1) Insurable employment is employment that is not included in excepted employment and 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;

. . ."

[7] The burden of proof is on the appellants.

[8] In Sylvie Desroches v. M.N.R. (A-1470-92), the Federal Court of Appeal describes the function of a Tax Court of Canada judge, and I quote:

". . . However, in the final analysis, as this Court held in Attorney-General of Canada v. Jacques Doucet, it is the Minister's determination which is at issue, namely that the employment was not insurable because the applicant and the payer were not bound by a contract of service. The function of the Tax Court of Canada judge extended to considering the record and the evidence in its entirety. Accordingly Marceau J.A., speaking for the Court, said the following in Doucet:

. . . The judge had the power and duty to consider any point of fact or law that had to be decided in order for him to rule on the validity of that determination. This is assumed by s. 70(2) of the Act and s. 71(1) of the Act so provides immediately afterwards . . .

The trial judge could go as far as deciding that there was no contract between the parties."

[9] Any doubt as to the proper interpretation must be resolved in favour of the taxpayer and there is nothing preventing a taxpayer from taking advantage of social legislation provided that the requirements of the Act are met. In Canada (Procureur général) v. Rousselle, decision rendered on October 31, 1990 (124 N.R. 339), Hugessen J.A. wrote as follows at pages 340-41:

"I do not think it is an exaggeration to say, in light of these facts, that if the respondents did hold employment this was clearly "convenience" employment, the sole purpose of which was to enable them to qualify for unemployment insurance benefits. These circumstances certainly do not necessarily prevent the employment from being insurable, but they imposed on the Tax Court of Canada a duty to look at the contracts in question with particular care; it is apparent that the motivation of the respondents was the desire to take advantage of the provisions of social legislation rather than to participate in the ordinary operation of the economic forces of the market place." (My emphasis.)

IV- Brief Summary of the Evidence

[10] Theodora Lambropoulos and Paraskevi Hadjinikita were heard in support of the appeals. Zohra El Foudani, Solange Delorme, Monique David, Daniel Desgroseillers and Francine Perreault were heard for the respondent. Exhibits I-1 to I-10 were filed in the Court record.

Theodora Lambropoulos's Testimony

[11] Ms. Lambropoulos knows the payer. She said her spouse met the owner of the payer at a restaurant.

[12] The appellant Ms. Lambropoulos was hired by the payer through her spouse.

[13] The appellant did not specifically state whether she had personally had meetings with the owner of the payer.

[14] She began by saying that she had done a number of jobs for the payer in 1973. She then said that she worked from June until the end of December 1983. Finally, she stated that she had been mistaken and that she had worked for the payer in 1993.

[15] She worked at 1480 and 1490 Painter Circle in Ville St-Laurent.

[16] She worked from 2:00 p.m. or 3:00 p.m. until midnight.

[17] She washed the stairs, cut the lawn, cleaned the mirrors and the garage, removed the snow outside, watered the plants and gathered up the leaves.

[18] She was laid off by Mike Tsakalis on December 31, 1993 because there was a shortage of work.

[19] She was paid once a month, by cheque, and received $400 a week.

[20] In cross-examination, she stated that she had done no plumbing or electrical work.

[21] She did not go to pick up the rent from the tenants.

[22] She did not do painting work.

[23] She never saw Jimmy Tsakalis, yet he went by to check on things.

[24] She remembers meeting an investigator from Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC) but could not give the date.

[25] She remembered that the investigator showed her a photograph of a person she identified by the name of Tasso.

[26] She said there were many people in the building.

[27] She said that another person worked for a brief period of time, but could not provide further explanation.

[28] She did not know whether the payer deducted taxes in calculating the amount of her pay cheques.

[29] She received her record of employment from Mike Tsakalis.

[30] She acknowledged her signature on the statutory declaration (Exhibit I-1) dated February 13, 1996.

[31] She said that there were four apartments per floor at the places where she had worked. There was one basement apartment at either 1480 or 1490 Painter Circle.

[32] There was a garage in each building, but she did not know whether there was just one door.

[33] In re-examination, she acknowledged her signature on Exhibit I-1. The investigator had read her statutory declaration back to her because she does not know how to read.

Paraskevi Hadjinikita's Testimony

[34] Ms. Hadjinikita saw an advertisement for a francophone secretary at a convenience store located on Rue du Souvenir.

[35] She went to 1480 Painter Circle to meet Jimmy Tsakalis.

[36] Her duties were to answer the telephone, write letters and translate documents into Greek.

[37] She worked in an apartment at 1480 Painter Circle.

[38] There was an office in that apartment.

[39] Her hours of work were from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. or 2:00 p.m., Monday to Friday.

[40] Her net salary was $1,500 a month and she was paid once a month, by cheque.

[41] She worked from December 1, 1991 until July 24, 1992, then left on July 25 for a week's vacation.

[42] During her vacation, she received a telephone call from Jimmy Tsakalis who informed her that business was quiet and told her that she could go to the unemployment insurance office, that she was dismissed.

[43] A few months later, she received a request for her services from Jimmy Tsakalis but did not want to go back to work at that place.

[44] In cross-examination, she said she had worked on the third floor at 1480 Painter Circle, a 12-apartment building. She believed it was Apartment 9.

[45] The place where she worked was an apartment with a closed bedroom which she had never entered. There was an office, a refrigerator and a place where she could have a coffee.

[46] According to the witness, no one lived in the apartment where she worked, at least [TRANSLATION] "during the time I worked there at the hours I worked".

[47] She had no contact with tenants. There were days when she was not in the office. There were not a lot of telephone calls.

[48] She was cross-examined on the statutory declaration (Exhibit I-2) dated July 24, 1995, which she had given to an HRDC investigator.

[49] She did not remember saying that she had worked at 1490 Painter Circle. She admitted that she might have worked at 1490 Painter Circle, Apartment 9.

[50] She did not remember whether she had told Solange Delorme of HRDC that she had worked on the first floor.

[51] When she was working for the payer, Jimmy Tsakalis was present most of the time.

[52] In her conversation with the appeals officer, Francine Perreault, she told her that Mickael Tsakalis was not there every day and that it was Jimmy Tsakalis who opened the door for her every day.

[53] When she answered the telephone, she assumed it was employees who were calling. She did not know how many employees worked for the payer.

[54] She did translation once a month, did the invoices and prepared the expense sheets for detergent, light bulbs, paint and other purchases.

[55] She could not give the order of magnitude of the expenses.

[56] She worked two or three hours a day. There was a lot of downtime. She was not very busy.

[57] She repeated that she had received $1,500 a month clear. She believed that deductions were made from her pay for unemployment insurance, health insurance and taxes, but there were not a lot of deductions because her husband worked and she had no dependent children.

[58] She produced her record of employment (Exhibit I-3).

[59] She stated that the translation work was done at her home.

[60] When she was at work, Jimmy Tsakalis was on the telephone in the same room as she. He was there until 2:00 p.m. or 3:00 p.m.

[61] She called the accountant a few times to check to see whether the cheques were ready and it was Jimmy Tsakalis who went to pick them up.

Zohra El Foudani's Testimony

[62] Zohra El Foudani knows the payer. She had an agreement with Jimmy Tsakalis.

[63] In 1992, she was supposed to work for the payer as a secretary for five or six months but never worked. Jimmy Tsakalis gave her a cheque which she deposited in a bank account. She subsequently handed the money over to him.

[64] She then received a record of employment and filed an unemployment insurance claim.

[65] She received benefits which she must now repay.

[66] These actions occurred prior to her giving birth, which took place on May 22, 1992.

Solange Delorme's Testimony

[67] This witness acted as insurance officer in the case of the worker Paraskevi Hadjinikita, whom she contacted on June 17, 1996.

[68] The witness related to the Court the information which the appellant Paraskevi Hadjinikita gave her in a telephone conversation on June 17, 1996.

[69] This information appears in Solange Delorme's report (Exhibit I-4) and reads as follows:

[TRANSLATION]

"- She was an apartment building office clerk for eight months.

- There were two apartment buildings, but she does not know how many apartments.

- She worked on the first floor, but does not know what apartment.

- She answered the telephone, prepared the invoices and translated brochures from Greek into French.

- She had a typewriter at home and took work home.

- She was not in the office all day.

- Most of the calls were for Jimmy Tsakalis, Mickael's brother.

- She never had any dealings with the tenants.

- Jimmy was her boss.

- She does not know whether there were other employees.

- She was paid by cheque, once a month.

- She does not know who signed the cheques and there were no cheque stubs.

- She does not know whether deductions were made.

- She had virtually nothing to do and it was unfulfilling employment.

- She does not remember whether she got the job by responding to an advertisement in the Greek newspaper, an announcement on the Greek radio or an advertisement in a convenience store."

Monique David's Testimony

[70] This witness is retired after 35 years as a teacher.

[71] She has been a tenant for 20 years in Apartment 7 in a building located at 1490 Painter Circle in Ville Saint-Laurent. This building belonged to the payer during the periods at issue.

[72] The witness gave a description of the premises. The property was a three-storey building with a basement, ground floor and two upper floors. There was an apartment in the basement, four apartments on the ground floor and five on each of the upper floors. There were five garage doors.

[73] In 1992, 1993 and 1994, she worked part time on a school dropout project two to two and a half days a week.

[74] She stated that the payer's name appeared on the mailbox of Apartment 3 at 1490 Painter Circle.

[75] She always dealt with Jimmy Tsakalis. It was he who picked up the monthly rent cheque at her apartment.

[76] Jimmy Tsakalis's brother Mickael lived in Apartment 3.

[77] If she had to communicate with the owner concerning her rent, she saw Jimmy Tsakalis in person most of the time.

[78] If she had to communicate by telephone, she did not dial the telephone number of Apartment 3, but another number because Jimmy Tsakalis did not live in the building where she lived.

[79] She said that it was Jimmy Tsakalis who washed the stairs, windows and halls, took care of the garbage and cut the lawn.

[80] She said that another tenant, a Mr. Marquis, did certain maintenance jobs over a one- to two-month period, but she did not see anyone else. If there were paint jobs to be done, someone was hired for that.

[81] The witness stated that the maintenance work done by Jimmy Tsakalis was done in the evenings.

[82] She never saw the appellant Theodora Lambropoulos doing maintenance work on the premises.

[83] In 1992 and 1993, Apartment 9 was located diagonally across from her apartment, no. 7, which was on the second floor.

[84] She did not know the appellant Paraskevi Hadjinikita.

[85] She admitted that she did not check all the floors every day to ascertain the identity of the people working in the building.

[86] She did say, however, that when she entered the garage in her car she had to go past the laundry room and the basement to get to her apartment. When she entered through the ground floor entrance on foot, she could not know what was going on in the basement or in the garage.

[87] She said that she used her car most of the time and had to enter through the garage and the basement.

[88] She never set foot in Apartment 9, but had been to Apartment 3.

[89] One of Jimmy Tsakalis's brothers has lived in Apartment 3 at 1490 Painter Circle for seven or eight years.

[90] She said that moves did not often take place in the building. Tenants did not change often. There was [TRANSLATION] "little tenant turnover".

[91] She appeared in Court after receiving a subpoena. She had previously been questioned by an HRDC investigator.

Daniel Desgroseillers's Testimony

[92] Mr. Desgroseillers is a senior HRDC investigator.

[93] He filed the record of employment of the appellant Theodora Lambropoulos.

[94] He wrote the statutory declaration of the appellant Theodora Lambropoulos on February 13, 1996 (Exhibit I-1). That appellant's daughter was present at the interview and translated the investigator's questions and the appellant's answers. Everything was recorded in the document filed as Exhibit I-1.

[95] The witness testified that he had investigated 15 to 20 employees of the payer.

[96] He met both appellants and tried to meet the payer, but the payer never wanted to meet him.

[97] Mr. Desgroseillers filed a table (Exhibit I-6) showing the periods of employment of the persons who had filed records of employment at HRDC for work done for the payer as either secretaries or janitors.

[98] He noted that the reason given for the termination of employment on all the records of employment was a "shortage of work".

[99] He went to the premises to check the building.

[100] He filed the appellant Paraskevi Hadjinikita's statutory declaration dated July 24, 1995 (Exhibit I-2), which reads as follows:

[TRANSLATION]

"Ms. Hadjinikita identified herself by means of her social insurance card and her health insurance card POTP 5151-1910 (99-01). She found this job through the Greek radio or the newspaper; she does not remember exactly. She worked as a secretary 25 to 30 hours a week. There were often days when I did not go in to work. I answered the telephone (not very busy) and translated documents into Greek for Jimmy Tsakalis. I added up the bills a few times. I rarely communicated with the accountant. I worked on Painter Street in Apartment 6 or 9 and there was no bed; it was only a business office. I received telephone calls to take orders for the number of employees required from the company to perform the maintenance contracts. To my knowledge, there was a janitor in the building because I saw a man frequently entering the building. He spoke with Jimmy. I stopped working in July to go on vacation and I did not return afterwards. I had no contract with the tenants. I worked at 1490 Painter. I did not know Mr. Tsakalis before getting this job. Nor did I know his family.

I did not know the accountant or her family. I never did maintenance work, just secretarial work."

Francine Perreault's Testimony

[101] Francine Perreault is the respondent's objections officer.

[102] She conducted an investigation and filed her reports (Exhibits I-7 and I-8) concerning the two appellants.

[103] She met the payer's president, Mickael Tsakalis, on March 6, 1997.

[104] He described the duties of the persons who were allegedly hired to do either maintenance work or secretarial work as stated in Exhibit I-7, page 6, paragraphs 3 and 4, as follows:

[TRANSLATION]

"The workers hired to do maintenance performed the following duties:

During the summer: cut the lawn and the hedge, sweep the sidewalk, pick up paper and attend to the flowers. They had to clean the buildings: the tiles on the walls, the windows and the interiors of vacant apartments. In addition to cleaning, the men had to paint the balconies and vacant apartments. The only woman to do painting was Férial Abuzahr, who perhaps on one occasion painted the cabinets of a vacant apartment since she lived in the building.

He also hired two secretaries. The office was located at 1490 Painter Circle, Apt 3. Their duties were to type documents as necessary, read the mail if documents were sent by tenants or companies, and answer the telephone. They took telephone messages from tenants and messages from calls received for Five Brothers Maintenance Ltd. They prepared the cheques for the invoices. They had little work. Mickael Tsakalis was the boss. He spent between 10 minutes and an hour at the office every day. Jimmy might occasionally stop by and he checked to see whether they needed anything."

[105] On December 2, 1996, Ms. Perreault met the appellant Paraskevi Hadjinikita, who gave her the following version (Exhibit I-7, pages 10 and 11):

[TRANSLATION]

"WORKER'S STATEMENT

The worker said she was hired as a secretary.

She worked in an office at 1480 Painter Circle, Apt. 9, on the third floor.

The owners are Mickael and Jimmy Tsakalis.

She does not really know anymore how she got the job, but states that it must have been either through a classified ad in the Greek newspaper, through the Greek radio, through the Greek community or through an advertisement posted at a convenience store in her neighbourhood. Her interview had been with Jimmy Tsakalis.

There was an arm's length relationship between the parties and she did not know the shareholders before she was hired. The payer's accountant works for the Greek community, but she was not made aware of this until later.

The office was equipped with a telephone and a typewriter and was located in the living room of the apartment.

She did not have the key and it was Jimmy who opened the door for her every day.

She did translation an average of once a month because Jimmy and Mickael did not read French or English well. Jimmy, who was regularly in the office, asked her to translate the city's brochures on fire safety, among other things, into Greek and to do personal translation, etc. She performed the translation work at her home because she had a typewriter equipped with the Greek alphabet, whereas the payer did not. Every two weeks or so, she attended to the invoices when there were, among other things, a lot of detergent purchases. She took the telephone messages, which were all for Jimmy, and contacted him on his pager only in case of emergency.

She did two to three hours of actual work a day since there was a lot of downtime and things were not really very busy.

Her schedule was from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, and she occasionally left in the afternoons to do translation at her home. Jimmy went to the office every day and spent approximately 50% of his time there. She did not really know what he did, but he spoke on the telephone and went to make purchases. He had a pager and she could contact him that way or call him at his residence. She did not know whether or not Jimmy did any work in the building.

Mickael Tsakalis came to the office on average once a month, unlike Jimmy, who was there every day.

She never saw any other employees at all for maintenance or office work.

She believes that the janitor was a woman, but does not know in what apartment she lived. However, she never had any dealings with a janitor.

She was paid $1,600 gross per month, by cheque, which represented a salary of $400 a week. She signed a book when her cheque was handed over to her.

Before she was hired in 1988 or 1989, she worked for the provincial government in the field of social services for the Greek community.

She states that people saw her working, but she does not know their names since she did not speak to them and attended to her own affairs.

She was not laid off; she decided one week after returning from vacation to leave the job.

The worker had nothing else to add."

[106] On February 5, 1997, Ms. Perreault met the appellant Theodora Lambropoulos, who told her the following (Exhibit I-8, pages 10 and 11):

[TRANSLATION]

"WORKER'S STATEMENT DATED FEBRUARY 5, 1997:

The worker was represented by Ephie Tagalahis. We used Kathy Papavasiliou as an interpreter since the worker had difficulty speaking English and French.

She did maintenance work at 1480 and 1490 Painter Circle and her boss was Mike Tsakalis. To her knowledge, he was the owner of the Five Brothers company and owned the two buildings.

She got the job because Mike Tsakalis went with a group of people to the Panama Restaurant where her spouse is a cook and told him that he was looking for people to do maintenance at his buildings.

There is an arm's length relationship between the parties.

Her duties were to wash and clean the wall tiles in the entrance and the walls on each floor, clean the banisters, clean the mirrors and windows in the entrance, and clean the garage with the hose. She also looked after the exterior and, during the summer, watered the plants and the lawn, and mowed the lawn. In the fall, she gathered up the leaves as there were five or six trees on the lot and, in the winter, she removed the snow at the entrance only.

She had the keys to the buildings and to the basement rooms used to store the maintenance equipment.

She worked in one building each day and did not start on the other building until she had finished. She could not work in both buildings on the same day because there was too much to do. She did not even have time to finish one building per work day. Mike told her to take her time because he wanted everything to be clean.

She worked alone. She often saw a man by the name of Taso painting in the buildings. She saw him irregularly every week throughout the period when she worked for the payer. She also saw—but less often than she saw Taso—a woman by the name of Tula or Soula doing maintenance as she herself did.

She worked from Monday to Friday on an afternoon schedule, starting between 2:00 and 4:00 p.m., most often around 3:00 p.m., and finishing around 11:00 p.m. or midnight, occasionally 1:00 a.m.

Her schedule was set by Mike Tsakalis.

Mike was not always there. She sometimes saw him in the storage area, but she did not know what he was doing and she had no idea whether he lived in one of the apartments. However, Mike had told her that he used an office at 1490 Painter Circle, Apt. 3.

She had no idea how the payer went about controlling the number of hours worked because she did not record any such information. He simply told her that she had to put in her eight hours a day, nothing more.

Prior to beginning her employment with the payer, in 1989 or 1990, she worked for the Méridien maintenance company.

The building at 1480 Painter Circle had 12 or 13 apartments, while in the other there were 14 or 15.

She knows Jimmy Tsakalis but has no idea whether he lived in one of the buildings. She never saw him doing any maintenance work. She does not know Gorge Tsakalis.

She received remuneration of approximately $1,500 a month. Mike gave her the cheque in person or left it on the desk in the basement premises.

She was laid off because of a shortage of work and has no idea of the name of the person who replaced her. Mike told her that he would speak to her husband if he had work, but she was never called back to work.

Tenants saw her working, but she does not know the name of anyone who might be able to identify her.

The worker had nothing else to add."

[107] After analyzing all the versions of the persons she met, Francine Perreault concluded that there was an arrangement between the payer and the appellants in particular and that there was no insurable contract of service.

V- Analysis

[108] The appellants had an obligation to show on the balance of evidence that there was an insurable contract of service between them and the payer during the periods at issue and that the appeals officer reached incorrect conclusions in her analysis of the facts.

[109] After hearing the witnesses in these appeals, the Court can only find that the appeals officer did not have much choice in view of the numerous contradictions in the facts she analyzed.

[110] What need was there to hire the appellant Theodora Lambropoulos at the same time as three other persons to perform janitorial work? Why was she dismissed if there was still work? The evidence before the appeals officer was that this appellant had never been seen on the premises doing anything. The evidence before the Court did not contradict this claim by the respondent.

[111] By her own admission, the appellant Paraskevi Hadjinikita did not have enough work for more than two or three hours a day. She did not go in to work every day.

[112] In the normal course of business and in accordance with the laws of the marketplace, will an employer hire a person and pay that person $1,500 a month for so little work? Furthermore, the Court cannot overlook the contradictions between the versions given by this appellant to the persons who questioned her.

[113] In addition, Ms. El Foudani's evidence showed that the payer did not need a secretary after the appellant Paraskevi Hadjinikita was dismissed. Ms. El Foudani received a record of employment, but did not provide any services.

[114] The appellants' versions must be analyzed with caution.

[115] The respondent's allegations were not contradicted and the appeals officer was right to find as she did. She had no choice. The reports were explicit and very complete.

[116] I adopt as my own the remarks by counsel for the respondent as though herein cited at length.

VI- Decisions

[117] The appeals are dismissed and the Minister's decisions are confirmed.

Signed at Dorval, Quebec, this 15th day of May 2000.

S. Cuddihy

D.J.T.C.C.