Date: 20081029
Dockets: A-441-07
A-443-07
Citation: 2008 FCA 334
CORAM: EVANS J.A.
SHARLOW J.A.
RYER J.A.
BETWEEN:
CARE
NURSING AGENCY LTD.
Appellant
and
THE
MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE
Respondent
Heard at Toronto, Ontario,
on October 29, 2008.
Judgment delivered from the
Bench at Toronto,
Ontario, on October
29, 2008.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: RYER
J.A.
Date:
20081029
Docket: A-441-07
A-443-07
Citation: 2008 FCA 334
CORAM: EVANS
J.A.
SHARLOW
J.A.
RYER
J.A.
BETWEEN:
CARE NURSING AGENCY LTD.
Appellant
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL
REVENUE
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE
COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on October 29,
2008)
RYER J.A.
[1]
In the two
appeals that are before us, the appellant challenges the decisions of the Tax
Court of Canada that upheld assessments of the appellant for failing to make
remittances of EI premiums and CPP contributions under the Employment
Insurance Act, S.C. 1996, c. 23 (the “EI Act”) and the Canada Pension
Plan, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-8 (the “Plan”). In particular, the appellant
challenges the findings of the Tax Court Judge that 130 health care workers
named in the assessments, who were placed by the appellant in a number of
health care facilities for short-term work and were remunerated for that work
by the appellant, were engaged in insurable employment, within the meaning of
paragraph 6(g) of the Employment Insurance Regulations (the “EI
Regulations”) and subsection 34(1) of the Canada Pension Plan Regulations
(the “Plan Regulations”).
[2]
The
appellant argues that it was under no obligation to make remittances of EI
premiums or CPP contributions in respect of any of the workers, except Ms.
Sunshine Smith, because no rulings as permitted by subsections 90(1) of the EI
Act and 26.1(1) of the Plan were obtained in respect of any of the workers other
than Ms. Smith. Despite the able arguments of counsel for the appellant, in our
view, sections 94 of the EI Act and 27.3 of the Plan permit the Minister to
make assessments under those acts in the absence of such rulings. Moreover, we
are not persuaded that the consequences of this interpretation are either
unreasonable or absurd. Accordingly, the Tax Court Judge correctly rejected
this argument.
[3]
The
appellant disputes the existence of an agreement at the outset of the hearing
in the Tax Court of Canada that one of the workers, Ms. Glennette London, could
provide representative testimony in relation to all the workers who are
referred to in the assessments. In our view, this submission is without merit.
The existence of this agreement is apparent from the transcript. In addition,
it is the appellant, and not the workers, that has been assessed. Accordingly,
the contention that the appellant lacked authority to “speak on behalf of the
nurses” is irrelevant.
[4]
For the
foregoing reasons, the appeals will be dismissed, with one set of costs. A copy
of these reasons should be placed in each of Court files A-441-07 and A-443-07.
“C.
Michael Ryer”
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-441-07
A-443-07
A-441-07: AN APPEAL FROM THE ORDER OF
WEISMAN, J., OF THE TAX COURT OF CANADA, DATED AUGUST 15, 2007, IN FILE NO.
2006-2546 (EI)
A-443-07: AN APPEAL FROM THE ORDER OF
WEISMAN, J., OF THE TAX COURT OF CANADA DATED AUGUST 15, 2007, IN FILE NO.
2006-2547 (CPP)
STYLE OF CAUSE: CARE NURSING AGENCY LTD. v. THE MINISTER
OF NATIONAL REVENUE
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
DATE OF HEARING: OCTOBER 29, 2008
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
OF THE COURT BY: (SHARLOW, EVANS, RYER JJ.A.)
DELIVERED FROM
THE BENCH BY: RYER J.A.
APPEARANCES:
|
John David Buote
Stella Kyariacou
|
FOR THE APPELLANT
|
|
Andrea Jackett
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
John David Buote
Stella Kyriacou
Brampton, Ontario
|
FOR THE
APPELLANT
|
|
John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
|
FOR THE
RESPONDENT
|
Email this Content