Date: 20010611
Docket: A-44-00
Neutral citation: 2001 FCA 194
CORAM: RICHARD C.J.
ROTHSTEIN J.A.
SEXTON J.A.
BETWEEN:
BRENT ROCKWOOD
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE
Respondent
Heard at St. John's, Newfoundland on Wednesday, May 30, 2001
Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on Monday, June 11, 2001
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: SEXTON J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: RICHARD C.J.
ROTHSTEIN J.A.
Date: 20010611
Docket: A-44-00
Neutral citation: 2001 FCA 194
CORAM: RICHARD C.J.
ROTHSTEIN J.A.
SEXTON J.A.
BETWEEN:
BRENT ROCKWOOD
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
SEXTON J.A.
[1] The Applicant claimed unemployment insurance benefits in connection with work performed for companies (the Payors) variously owned by his father, sister, mother, brother-in-law and wife or some of them.
[2] The applicant was denied benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act because the Minister of National Revenue decided that the Payors and the Applicant were not dealing with each other at arm's length and that there was no employer-employee relationship between them.
[3] The Tax Court Judge set out in detail the assumption made by the Minister which showed that the applicant's position with the Payors was an artificial arrangement designed solely to obtain the maximum unemployment insurance benefits.
[4] The Tax Court Judge held that the onus was on the Applicant to establish that the Minister acted capriciously or arbitrarily and that the Applicant had failed to discharge this onus. He relied on decisions of the Court being Tignish Auto Parts Inc. v. Minister of National Revenue (1994), 185 N.R. 73 (F.C.A.) and Ferme Emile Richard et Fils v. Minister of National Revenue (1994), 178 N.R. 361 (F.C.A.)..
[5] Rather than filing the record of the proceedings before the Tax Court, the Applicant sought to rely on new affidavit evidence which was not before the Tax Court. No proper basis for the introduction of such evidence was made out and hence we will not consider it.
[6] In the absence of the record before the Tax Court, we are unable to disagree with the conclusion of the Tax Court Judge. He could only substitute his decision for that of the Minister where it is established that the Minister acted in bad faith or for an improper purpose or failed to take into account all of the relevant circumstances Canada (Attorney General) v. Jencan, [1998] 1 F.C. 187 (C.A.). None of these were established in this case.
[7] The application will be dismissed with costs.
"J. Edgar Sexton"
J.A.
"I agree
J. Richard C.J."
"I agree
Marshall Rothstein J.A."
Email this Content