Montplaisir – Court of Quebec finds (re s. 6(6)(a)(i)) that a succession of engagements for projects of his employer’s client amounting to 10 years were “of a temporary nature”

The taxpayer was employed by an engineering services firm (Norda), which was hired by a client (Valero) to provide contract administration services at the offices of Valero. The taxpayer was hired by Norda to fulfill this role, which were performed pursuant to what turned out to be a succession of projects. Each contract with Valero was for a year or so, and they accumulated to a total of 10 years before the arrangement was terminated. Throughout this period, the taxpayer provided his services in relation to the various Valero projects from the Valero offices in the Lévis area, and visited his wife and children in Bécancour on weekends and for an evening during the week, and the rest of the time stayed at rented premises in Lévis.

In finding that the performance of the taxpayer’s duties at the “special work site” (namely, the Valero offices) were “of a temporary nature” as required by the Quebec equivalent of s. 6(6)(a)(i), Painchaud JCQ stated:

Over the 10 years, Mr. Montplaisir stated that he did not know whether, at the end of the period specified in Valero's services order, his services would still be required, and if so, for how long. His employment in Lévis was thus dependent on the company's major projects and its budgetary position.

Accordingly, the taxpayer was not taxable on the accommodation and kilometrage allowances paid to him by Norda.

Neal Armstrong. Summary of Montplaisir v. Agence du revenu du Québec, 2025 QCCQ 6998 under s. 6(6)(a)(i).