Thornbrook Complete Home Care Inc. v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue), 2005 FCA 22

                                                                            Date: 20050118

Docket: A-164-04

Citation: 2005 FCA 22

CORAM:        ROTHSTEIN J.A.

NOËL J.A.

MALONE J.A.

BETWEEN:

THORNBROOK COMPLETE HOME CARE INC.

Appellant

                                                                           and

THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE

Respondent

Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on January 18^th, 2005.

Judgment delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on January 18^th, 2005.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY:                                            ROTHSTEIN J.A.

Date: 20050118

Docket: A-164-04

Citation: 2005 FCA 22

CORAM:        ROTHSTEIN J.A.

PELLETIER J.A.

MALONE J.A.

BETWEEN:

THORNBROOK COMPLETE HOME CARE INC.

Appellant

                                                                           and

THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on January 18, 2005)

ROTHSTEIN J.A.

[1]                In this employment versus independent contractor appeal from the Tax Court, a significant issue is whether the individuals were carrying on business on their own account when the matter was considered from their perspective. See for example 671122 Ontario Ltd. v. Sagaz Industries Canada Inc., [2001] 2 S.C.R. 983, at paragraph 43.

[2]                The learned Tax Court judge stated at paragraph 21 of his reasons:

A business will ordinarily have two or more customers or clients but, in these appeals, the clients are very clearly the clients of Thornbrook.

This conclusion, along, with his other findings, caused him to determine that the individuals were employees.

[3]                However, while general in nature, there was evidence in the record from the individuals that they had other customers than Thornbrook Complete Home Care Inc. at the relevant time. In the case of one individual, she appeared to be operating under a business name, Zimani 97.

[4]                While the reasons of the judge are thorough and well laid out, we can find no reference to this evidence. On the contrary, the statement of the judge quoted above appears to suggest that the individuals had no other clients or customers than Thornbrook.

[5]                Because there were considerations pointing in both directions, that is, of an employment or independent contractor relationship, we cannot be certain, had this evidence been taken into account, what conclusion the judge would have reached.

[6]                We must therefore allow the appeal and remit the matter to the Tax Court for redetermination on the basis of appropriate evidence.

"Marshall Rothstein"

                                                                                                      J.A.                             

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                                           A-164-04

STYLE OF CAUSE:               THORNBROOK COMPLETE HOME CARE INC.

Appellant

and

THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE

Respondent

PLACE OF HEARING:                     TORONTO, ONTARIO

DATE OF HEARING:                       JANUARY 18, 2005

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

OF THE COURT:                               (ROTHSTEIN, NOËL and MALONE, JJ.A.)

DELIVERED FROM THE

BENCH BY:                                       ROTHSTEIN J.A.                   

APPEARANCES:

Mr. Cosimo Fiorenza

Ms. Natasha Miklaucic             

FOR THE APPELLANT                                 

Ms. Donna Dorosh                               

FOR THE RESPONDENT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Goodman & Carr

Barristers & Solicitors

Toronto, Ontario                                  

FOR THE APPELLANT

John H. Sims, Q.C.

Deputy Attorney General of Canada     

FOR THE RESPONDENT