|
Citation: 2006TCC109
|
|
Date: 20060310
|
|
Docket: 2004-102(EI)
|
|
BETWEEN:
MICHEL LELIÈVRE,
|
|
Appellant,
|
|
and
|
|
|
|
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
|
|
Respondent,
|
|
and
|
|
|
|
LE HOMARDIER D'ANTICOSTI INC.,
|
|
Intervener.
|
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH
TRANSLATION]
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Tardif J.
[1] This is an appeal from a decision rendered by the
Minister of National Revenue (the "Minister") on September 30,
2003, concerning the insurability of the work performed by the Appellant for Le Homardier D'Anticosti Inc. from May 13, 2001
to August 4, 2001, and from May 5, 2002 to July 27, 2002.
[2] In the determination here in appeal, the Respondent
concluded that the work performed by the Appellant must be excluded from
insurable employment under paragraph 5(2)(i) of the Employment
Insurance Act (the "Act"), as the Minister was satisfied
that, having regard to all the circumstances of the employment, it was not
reasonable to conclude that the Appellant and the Payer would have entered into
a substantially similar contract of employment if they had been dealing with
each other at arm's length.
[3] As the legal basis of the determination is
paragraph 5(2)(i) of the Act, that paragraph should be cited
here:
(2) Insurable employment does not include:
[...]
(i) employment if the employer
and employee are not dealing with each other at arm's length.
[4] In support of his
determination, the Respondent made the following assumptions of fact:
[TRANSLATION]
14.(a) during
the periods in issue, the shareholders of the Payer with voting rights were:
|
The Appellant
Anne‑Marie Lelièvre
John Pineault
|
34 voting shares
33 voting shares
33 voting shares
|
(b) the Appellant is the spouse of
Anne‑Marie Lelièvre;
(c) the Appellant is a member of a
related group that controls the Payer.
15.(a) The
Payer was incorporated on May 1, 2001;
(b) the Payer was engaged in
lobster fishing and owned two boats, one 25 feet long for fishing in
shallow water and the other 35 feet long;
(c) lobster fishing was carried on
from mid‑May to the end of July, on one boat at a time;
(d) since 1998, the Appellant had
held the exclusive right to use a lobster-fishing licence valued at $50,000;
(e) before the Payer was
incorporated, the Appellant was sole proprietor of the lobster-fishing business
under the trade name "Les pêcheries d'Anticosti Enr.";
(f) when the Payer was created,
the Appellant transferred the boats, equipment, traps and the fishing rights to
the Payer in return for non-voting Class E shares;
(g) the Appellant is the sole
director of the Payer;
(h) in 2001, the Payer's gross
income totalled $62,569, resulting in losses of $23,731 and, in 2002, gross
income totalled $43,138, resulting in losses of $36,440;
(i) during the periods in issue,
the Appellant was also the sole shareholder of Location AML Inc.;
(j) Location AML Inc. operated a
vehicle leasing business on Anticosti Island and a secondary school-bus
operation with the Commission scolaire du Fer;
(k) the Appellant worked as a
fisherman's helper for the Payer;
(l) the Appellant, suffering from
back pain, did not take part in all the trips to sea;
(m) on May 29, 2001,
Denis Jean, a chiropractor, issued a certificate of disability to the
Appellant for the period from June 1 to August 1, 2001;
(n) on June 1, 2001, Fisheries
and Oceans Canada issued a temporary certificate of authorization of absence to
the Appellant;
(o) on April 10, 2002,
Denis Jean, a chiropractor, issued a certificate of disability to the
Appellant;
(p) on May 22, 2002, Fisheries
and Oceans Canada issued a temporary certificate of authorization of absence to
the Appellant;
(q) the Appellant determined his
own schedule of work for the Payer;
(r) during the periods in issue,
when the Appellant did not go to sea, he worked for Locations AML Inc. one to
five days a week;
(s) in 2001, the Appellant
received, from the Payer, for the entire fishing period, remuneration of $750
per week for 12 consecutive weeks;
(t) in 2001, John Pineault
and Marc Beaudin worked for the Payer;
(u) in 2001, John Pineault and
Marc Beaudin received the same remuneration from the Payer as that paid to
the Appellant for the same period;
(v) in 2002, the Appellant received
from the Payer, for the entire fishing period, remuneration of $750 per week
for 12 consecutive weeks;
(w) in 2001 John Pineault,
Kavin Martin and Richard Méthot worked for the Payer;
(x) in 2002, John Pineault,
Kavin Martin and Richard Méthot received the same remuneration from
the Payer as that paid to the Appellant for the same period;
(y) the Appellant received the same
remuneration as the other fishermen who took part in every trip to sea, whereas
the Appellant did not go to sea a number of days a week;
(z) the Appellant's remuneration
from the Payer was unreasonable in view of the fact that he did not take part
in all the trips to sea;
(aa) Locations AML Inc. operated
during the lobster-fishing period;
(bb) during the periods in issue, the
Appellant provided services to Locations AML Inc. as many as
five days a week;
(cc) during the periods in issue, the
Appellant did not receive any remuneration from Location AML Inc.;
(dd) before and after the periods in
issue, the Appellant cut wood, built traps and repaired the Payer's equipment,
without receiving any remuneration from the Payer for his services;
(ee) on August 10, 2001, the
Payer issued the Appellant a Record of Employment showing May 13, 2001, as
the first day of work and August 4, 2001, as the last day of work, and
showed 960 insurable hours and insurable earnings of $9,000.00;
(ff) on July 29, 2002, the
Payer issued the Appellant a Record of Employment showing May 5, 2002, as
the first day of work and July 27, 2002, as the last day of work and
showing 900 insurable hours and insurable earnings of $9,000.00;
(gg) the Appellant signed his own
records of employment;
(hh) the periods allegedly worked by
the Appellant did not coincide with the periods actually worked;
(ii) the Payer's records of
employment do not reflect the hours actually worked or the periods actually
worked by the Appellant;
(jj) the Payer would not have given
the Appellant such employment conditions if they had been dealing with each
other at arm's length.
[5] The Respondent also admitted certain facts contained
in the notice of appeal. Those facts are as follows:
[TRANSLATION]
1. Le Homardier d'Anticosti
Inc. (hereinafter the "Payer") operates a
lobster-fishing business on Anticosti Island.
2. The
business has been in operation since 1998, although it was not incorporated
until May 2001. The three shareholders of the business are the Appellant, Anne‑Marie Lelièvre,
the Appellant's spouse and John Pineault, each of whom holds
33.33 percent of the shares.
3. The Payer owns two fishing
boats, one 26 feet long and the other 35 feet long, and all the
fishing equipment necessary to carry on its activities, including
500 traps, 300 in the water and 200 in reserve.
4. The fishing season extends from
mid‑May to the last week of July, for a total of approximately
11 weeks.
5. The Payer employed four
fishermen: the Appellant, John Pineault, Kavin Martin and a
fisherman's helper, Marc Beaudin in 2001, and Richard Méthot in 2002.
[...]
9. Durant the fishing season, the
Payer rented a cottage to house the fishermen all week, since the fishing area
was situated more than 85 km from the village.
[...]
16. During the fishing season, which
lasts 75 days, the Payer cannot afford to lose a single day.
[...]
19. The Payer's business is
currently operating at a loss (losses of $23,728 in 2001 and $36,440 in 2002).
[...]
22. The Appellant has held the
fishing licence since 1998; he has fished for the business since that time.
23. Since 2001, the Appellant has
had serious back problems that prevent him from going to sea every day.
24. Fisheries and Oceans Canada
requires that he also be the captain; as he cannot be on board the boat every
time it goes to sea, he has had to delegate the captain's duties to
John Pineault.
25. A medical certificate to this
effect from Dr. Denis Jean, a chiropractor, is forwarded to Fisheries
and Oceans Canada every year. The Appellant's back pain is related to a loss of
balance caused by wave motion.
[...]
[6] Where the Payer and the person who performs the work
do not deal with each other at arm's length, the work performed is excluded
from insurable employment, unless the relevant facts show that the work was
performed in a manner comparable or similar to the way in which it would have
been performed if the two parties had been dealing with each other at arm's
length.
[7] However, the exclusion is not absolute. Under
paragraph 5(2)(i) of the Act, work that, in principle, is
excluded from insurable employment on the basis of non-arm's length dealing
can, under certain conditions, be deemed to be arm's-length employment and thus
become insurable employment, if the facts show that, having regard to all the
circumstances, including the remuneration paid, the duration and the terms and
conditions of work, it was work performed in conditions similar to a situation
in which the parties would have been dealing with each other at arm's length.
[8] This exception is provided for in paragraph 5(3)(b),
which reads as follows:
(3) For the purposes of paragraph (2)(i),
(b)
if the employer is, within the meaning of that Act, related to the employee,
they are deemed to deal with each other at arm’s length if the Minister of
National Revenue is satisfied that, having regard to all the circumstances of
the employment, including the remuneration paid, the terms and conditions, the
duration and the nature and importance of the work performed, it is reasonable
to conclude that they would have entered into a substantially similar contract
of employment if they had been dealing with each other at arm’s length.
The Facts
[9] During the periods in issue, Le Homardier
d'Anticosti Inc. was a corporation the purpose of which was to engage in
lobster fishing. The season began in mid‑May and ended in late July. The
Appellant worked for the company as a fisherman's helper. Starting in 2002, he
had to change the nature of his work because of back problems.
[10] At the same time as the fishing-related work, the
Appellant, in his capacity as sole shareholder of Location AML Inc., also
oversaw the operation of that business, although his spouse played a very
important role in it. Location AML Inc. operated a truck-rental franchise on
Anticosti Island.
[11] According to the Appellant, despite the distance
between the fishing port or area and the rental business, it was possible to
communicate quickly and effectively by radio or cellular telephone.
[12] The evidence showed unequivocally that the Appellant
enjoyed considerable independence in his work schedule. Being the sole
shareholder of Location AML Inc., he devoted part of his time to the management
of that business, in return for which, however, he received no remuneration.
[13] The fishing-related activities took place at a location
relatively distant from the place of business and the hub of the island
community. It took more than an hour to travel to the location where the boats
were moored and where the fishing equipment was stored.
[14] The Appellant was essentially the head of both
businesses, the one engaged in lobster fishing, the other in truck rentals.
[15] The truck rental period started in mid‑June.
Preparatory work, such as receiving the trucks, putting the organization in
place, managing reservations and so on, had to be done before rental operations
commenced.
[16] To better understand the operation of that business, it
must be understood that all the trucks for rent were returned to the mainland
at the end of the season; the ferry between Anticosti Island and the mainland
brought them back to the island in the spring. As the ferry had limited
capacity, the trucks were transported a few at a time on each ferry trip, as
the business required them. On each arrival, someone had to go to the dock to
pick up the trucks and drive them to the corporation's place of business.
[17] As the June and July period was clearly demanding, the
Appellant contended that he divided his time and devoted it to the running of
both businesses, even though, according to the records of employment that he
himself had signed, he worked 80 hours a week for the fishing business in
2001, and 75 hours a week in 2002 and 2003.
[18] The Appellant had two co‑shareholders, Anne‑Marie Lelièvre,
his spouse, and John Pineault, each of whom held 33.33 percent of the
shares of Le Homardier d'Anticosti Inc.
[19] The Appellant owned all the shares in the other
business, which enabled him to do what he wanted, when he wanted, even though
his spouse had important responsibilities, to the extent that she in fact took
part in the management of the business as though she was a co‑owner.
[20] The Appellant controlled his work schedule and decided
on the nature of the work to be done. Throughout his testimony, moreover, he
spoke as though he had been the only shareholder.
[21] The evidence brought before the Court highlighted the
following facts in particular:
·
A medical
certificate enabled the Appellant to enjoy the status of fisherman without
taking part in fishing activities at sea. A co‑worker of the Appellant
who was very much involved in the fishing activities was unaware of the
Appellant's physical disability. The captain, who owned 33 percent of the
shares, did not testify.
·
The
Appellant signed damage reports, invoices and cheques for Location AML Inc., of
which he was the sole shareholder, even though the records of employment stated
that the Appellant worked 70 to 80 hours a week for the fishing company.
·
The
Appellant was often at the rental business.
·
Richard Méthot,
who was also paid as a fisherman, stated that he never knew about the
Appellant's back problems for which he had obtained a certificate of exemption.
·
The
fishing activities operated at a loss, to the point where Location AML Inc. was
regularly called upon to bolster the fishing business's finances.
·
Although
there were two separate legal entities, the Appellant had considerable freedom
to do what he wanted. Thus it could be seen that some employees worked for both
companies, but were remunerated by only one. The two businesses operated under
the principle of communicating vessels.
·
First
of all, Locations AML Inc., the corporation in which the Appellant held all the
shares, was regularly called upon to make contributions to replenish the
finances of the lobster-fishing business, which was operating at a loss. These
ad hoc financial contributions gave him preponderant authority over the other shareholders,
to the point where the corporation had neither the right nor the de facto
power to control the Appellant's work for which he received remuneration.
·
How
can it be explained that the Appellant received the same salary as the other
fishermen, even though he had a serious physical disability and devoted a
portion of his available time to the management of his other business, which no
doubt caused certain scheduling conflicts from time to time? It would have been
interesting to hear the side of the second shareholder, John Pineault, on
these matters.
[22] The evidence raises the following questions:
·
Could
a person dealing at arm's length have expected to receive the same salary as
the person responsible and captain of the boat who took an active part in the
fishing?
·
Would
a worker dealing at arm's length have been able to set his own work schedule so
as to enable himself to manage or operate another business, to the possible
detriment of the business paying him a salary?
·
Would
a worker dealing at arm's length have allowed part of his assets or income from
another source to be invested in a business operating at a major loss?
[23] The answers are obviously no.
[24] A number of the Appellant's statements in his statutory
declaration (Exhibit A‑2) provide some clarification:
[TRANSLATION]
[...]
In 2000 (in 2001 completely involved in fishing),
Kevan Martin is shown on the payroll of Location AML and received the same
wages as the fisherman's helpers on the same dates? Where did he work?
During my days off, it was he who went out on the boat.
When it was windy, if I had two or three days when I did not go out, I
worked for AML, and I was paid by Pêcheries. He was paid by AML and worked
approximately half and half for Location and Pêcheries (during July).
The agreement was that he was paid by Location but worked
for both, so, when I wasn't out on the boat, he replaced me. There were at
least two days when I wasn't out on the boat--Friday and Saturday or
Saturday and Sunday. For example, in 2001, there were three weeks when we
didn't fish because of the wind. Particularly when there were breakdowns, I had
to come and make the repairs. The boat is anchored one hour from here by
road and four hours by boat from Port Meunier.
[...]
On May 30, 2002, there is a
$4,000 disbursement with the notation "Loan – Lobster"? What were the
conditions of that loan?
Le Homardier was to repay it as soon as it could.
[...]
Do all the shareholders hold voting
shares?
I think so; my accountant has the answer to that.
What percentage?
33⅓ percent,
I believe; that's in the book.
Who has signing authority for the
company's documents (bank instruments)?
I believe it's all three, but I'm not sure; I handled the
administration, but I'm not sure whether Marie has signing authority, but John,
yes; I'm no surer than that.
Does the company have a credit
card?
It just got one in July.
Who are the holders of that card?
The card is in two names, Anne-Marie's and mine.
Who are the users of that card?
Anne-Marie may be authorized to sign, since both names were
needed in order to get the card, which is also a line of credit card. I only
have $1,000 that can be used personally. For purchases of all kinds ‑
related to the company's fishing.
Can you use that credit card
throughout the year?
It's used to buy boat parts. I believe there are no use
restrictions, provided it doesn't exceed $1,000.
[...]
On March 13, 2001, Pêcheries
Anticosti Enr. issued a cheque for $1,363.05 to Entreprises ALM Inc. What is
that business?
That's the accountant, André Monger.
On March 12, 2001, you put $5,000 into your business.
What was the reason for that investment?
On April 30, 2001, you put
$1,194.01 into your business. What was the reason for that investment the day
before your business was incorporated?
Those investments were to cover debt. We put our money into
it. Anne‑Marie and I invested funds in the same month as the
incorporation occurred.
[...]
On May 1, 2001, the sum of
$100 was invested in your business under the heading "Shareholder
Investment AM"? Who invested that amount and what was the consideration?
You'd have to talk to the accountant about that, everything
concerning the incorporation.
On June 20, 2001, the sum of
$100 was invested in your business under the heading "Shares of the Three
Shareholders"; who invested that amount and what was the consideration?
You'd have to talk to the accountant about that, everything
concerning the incorporation.
[...]
On September 19, 2001, you
received the sum of $10,500 from Maison du pêcheur? What was the reason for
that payment?
I have a service contract with the owner since he's a
diesel mechanic. He came and got the boat and brought it back, and did the
mechanical maintenance on the boat. We sold him lobster last year.
[...]
On June 12, 2002, a cash
inflow of $4,000 appears in the book with the notation "Loan"? Who
was the lender?
It's always Location that lends money.
On June 10, 2002, a block of
payments was made by your business with the notation "Cash Casual
Suppliers"; that block of payments totals $27,884? Who are these
suppliers?
Those are payments related to the shipwreck.
[25] Although the appeal relates only to the work that the
Appellant performed for Le Homardier d'Anticosti Inc., it is important to
consider certain facts relating to the management of the truck-rental business,
in which the Appellant owned all the shares.
[26] Despite the operational requirements of that business,
and the fact that his spouse was closely associated with it, the documentary
evidence shows that his spouse began working there at the end of June.
[27] Thus, again according to the documentary evidence, the
Appellant worked 70 to 80 hours a week for Le Homardier d'Anticosti
Inc., and his spouse began working at the end of June. The question that arises
is where the Appellant found the time to manage the truck-rental business.
[28] Following the investigation and analysis of all the
facts considered relevant, the Minister concluded that the Appellant's working
terms and conditions with Le Homardier d'Anticosti Inc. would not have
been the same if he had been dealing at arm's length. Based on that finding,
the Respondent simply relied on paragraph 5(2)(i) of the Act,
which reads as follows:
(2) Insurable
employment does not include:
[...]
(i) employment if the employer
and employees are not dealing with each at arm's length.
[29] It was clearly established on the evidence adduced,
which is entirely consistent with the facts considered in the analysis of the
case, that the Appellant was hardly or not at all accountable for the work
performed for the lobster-fishing business.
[30] In addition to these revealing facts relating to the
assessment of the nature of the employer-employee relationship between the
Appellant and Le Homardier d'Anticosti Inc., the Court must also consider
the fact that the second shareholder, John Pineault, who held
33 percent of the capital stock, did not testify.
[31] It would have been highly appropriate for him to come
and explain the nature of his involvement and especially how the corporation
was able to exercise its power of control over the work performed by the
Appellant. I think it important to recall that the burden of proof was on the
Appellant.
[32] Lastly, the evidence also revealed a very important aspect
of the role played by the Appellant. The Appellant's spouse, Anne‑Marie Lelièvre,
the third shareholder, who also held 33 percent of the shares, formally
stated that she had had nothing to do with Le Homardier d'Anticosti Inc.
When examined on her participation in the affairs of Le Homardier
d'Anticosti Inc., in which she nevertheless held 33 percent of the capital
stock, Anne‑Marie Lelièvre stated the following (Exhibit I‑13
- Statutory Declaration of Annie‑Marie Lelièvre, p. 5):
[TRANSLATION]
How long
have you been a shareholder of Pêcheries?
Since March 2002, of 33 percent, which is equivalent
to an investment of approximately $5,000. Before that, it was just Michel. I've
become a shareholder very recently. John Pineault has 33 percent and
Michel has 33 percent as well. It's Michel who handles that entirely.
The questionnaire that the Commission sent on May 21,
2002, was completed by Michel.
I don't have anything to do with
that company, and I don’t know anything about it.
(My emphasis)
Why did you invest in this company?
Michel wanted to have shareholders, and that's why I
invested. He doesn't talk to me about the things he buys for the boat.
Does John Pineault handle it,
or just Michel?
It's more Michel who handles things, like the papers.
Kevan Martin worked for
Location in 1999; what did he do?
He mainly washed the trucks, looked
after the tires, and those things were done on Saturdays. Kevan checked the
entire vehicle. I was his supervisor. He didn't work the entire summer at
Location. When it was owned by Tilden, he had more day work. He did both
companies, Pêcheries and Location; he was about half and half for 1999 and
2001. In 1999, he had more work. I had more daily rentals with Tilden; I had a
lot less with Sauvageau; with them, it's more long-term.
In 2001, he went fishing more often, 75 percent
fishing, 25 percent rentals. When he got his record for Pêcheries, he
didn't come to Location at all.
In 2000, in the first two weeks of August, he worked for
AML on Saturdays and on other duties during the week. I was the boss.
Does anyone else wash the vehicles?
No, just on weekends, we set Saturdays aside to wash the
trucks. For daily rentals, Michel washes the trucks.
[33] In addition to energetically contending that owning a
truck-rental business had little or no impact on his work as a fisherman, the
Appellant also stated his main grievance with and criticism of the quality of
the investigation and analysis work, that the particular, indeed even unique,
situation prevailing on Anticosti Island had not been taken into consideration.
[34] These two factors have no impact; all regions have
their particular characteristics. Although the provisions of the Act are
the same for everyone, the regulations can vary, precisely in order to take
certain particular characteristics into account. This is the case for
fishermen, for the number of hours required to qualify and so on.
[35] In the instant case, it is a well-known fact that
economic activities on Anticosti Island were and still are particular, in that
they depend almost entirely on tourism, the extent of which requires that
support infrastructure be prepared. This fact has no impact on the terms and
conditions of the work performed by the Appellant.
[36] The wage parity between the Appellant and the other
fishermen, the fact that the Appellant enjoyed considerable independence in
performing his work, the fact that he managed the corporation as though he were
its sole shareholder, and the fact that the corporation in which he held all the
shares made advances and occasionally paid the fishermen's wages are all
relevant facts that have nothing to do with the particular characteristics of
Anticosti Island's economy.
[37] In light of all the facts revealed by the evidence, it
seems clear that the Appellant's actions were not subject to any control. He
enjoyed a freedom and independence such that he was accountable to absolutely
no one. He made all the important decisions and set his own working hours. In
actual fact, he was the directing mind of Le Homardier d'Anticosti Inc.
[38] Although the capital stock was distributed equally
among the Appellant, his spouse and John Pineault, his spouse and
Mr. Pineault were clearly not involved in any way.
[39] This conclusion follows from the admission of the
Appellant's spouse. As to John Pineault, the fact that he did not testify
confirms that he clearly had a very passive role. The fact that Location AML
Inc., of which the Appellant was the sole shareholder, invested in the fishing
company is another indication that the other two shareholders played a
secondary role.
[40] The question of John Pineault's actual status
could have been raised and questioned. Having regard to the Appellant's
spouse's lack of interest in the business of the corporation, it would have
been very important to call John Pineault as a witness.
[41] Some of the evidence might support the argument that
the Appellant controlled more than 40 percent of the shares of
Le Homardier d'Anticosti Inc., indeed even all the shares.
[42] However, it is neither necessary nor useful to rule on
that point, since it can clearly be concluded on a balance of probabilities
that the Appellant enjoyed special status that was clearly not comparable to
that which a third party would have had. Neither his remuneration nor his terms
and conditions could be compared to those that would have existed if the
parties had been dealing with each other at arm's length.
[43] On a balance of probabilities, the facts considered in
the analysis of the case were sufficient to warrant the determination that was
entirely reasonable in the circumstances. The evidence adduced at trial was,
moreover, consistent with the facts available at the time of the analysis that
led to the determination.
[44] The analysis of the facts was conducted in an
appropriate and reasonable manner; the relevant facts were considered and the
conclusion reached is reasonable and entirely appropriate. The facts considered
were moreover restated at the hearing.
[45] The facts support the conclusion that there could
be no relationship of subordination between the Appellant and the corporation
in which the Appellant held only 33.33 percent of the shares, in view of
the fact that his spouse, who also held 33.33 percent of the shares, expressly
stated the following, and I repeat:
[TRANSLATION]
I don't have anything to do with that company, and I don’t
know anything about it.
[46] In the instant case, the evidence, and the burden of
proof was on the Appellant, revealed no facts or elements that might lead the
Court to find that the Respondent failed to consider one or more of the
relevant facts that might have had an effect on the finding.
[47] The Minister concluded that, having regard to the terms
and conditions of the Appellant's employment, the compensation paid to him, the
duration of the employment and the nature and importance of the work performed,
the Appellant and Le Homardier d'Anticosti Inc. would not have entered
into a substantially similar contract of employment if they had been dealing
with each other at arm's length. In the circumstances, that conclusion proved
to be entirely reasonable.
[48] It was shown on a balance of probabilities that the
Appellant enjoyed employment conditions that were unlike those of a person who
would have been dealing at arm's length. The Appellant was in charge and
clearly accountable to no one. He acted as though he were the head of a sole
proprietorship.
[49] For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed, as the
determination is well founded in fact and in law.
Signed at
Ottawa, Ontario, this 10th day of March 2006.
Tardif J.
Translation certified true
on this 7th day of August 2006.
Julie Poirier,
Translator
Email this Content