Date: 19990217
Docket: A-333-97
CORAM: DÉCARY J.A.
LINDEN J.A.
ROBERTSON J.A.
| IN THE MATTER of an Application under Section 28 of the Federal Court Act |
|
| AND IN THE MATTER of a Decision of the Tax Court of Canada made pursuant to the provisions of The Unemployment Insurance Act |
|
BETWEEN:
ROSE MARIE KADZIOLKA
Applicant
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
Heard at Saskatoon (Saskatchewan) on Wednesday, February 17, 1999.
Judgment delivered from the Bench on February 17, 1999.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
OF THE COURT DELIVERED BY: DÉCARY J.A.
Date: 19990217
Docket: A-333-97
CORAM: DÉCARY J.A.
LINDEN J.A.
ROBERTSON J.A.
| IN THE MATTER of an Application under Section 28 of the Federal Court Act |
|
| AND IN THE MATTER of a Decision of the Tax Court of Canada made pursuant to the provisions of The Unemployment Insurance Act |
|
BETWEEN:
ROSE MARIE KADZIOLKA
Applicant
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Saskatoon (Saskatchewan)
on Wednesday, February 17, 1999)
DÉCARY J.A.
[1] There was, in our view, ample evidence to support the finding by the Tax Court Judge that the applicant, who was employed by her son, was engaged in excepted employment under paragraph 3(2)(c) of the Unemployment Insurance Act and section 251 of the Income Tax Act.
[2] More particularly, the fact that the applicant had agreed to be paid with lump sums unlike the other employees; the fact that the applicant received only one check for each of the two periods at issue (lasting, respectively, 22 weeks and 13 weeks); the fact that the check with respect to the first period was negotiated for cash and the check with respect to the second period was not negotiated until eighteen months later because the employer was waiting for a check from a client; the fact that the applicant's remuneration was twice that of the best paid of the other employees and the fact that Unemployment Insurance and Pension Plan premiums were withheld from the applicant's salary, but that no income tax deductions were made, are all facts that enabled the Tax Court Judge to conclude on the whole of the evidence that the applicant and her son would not "have entered into such a contract of employment if they had been dealing at arm's length".
[3] The application for judicial review will therefore be dismissed.
J.A.
Email this Content