|
Docket: 2003-2578(EI)
|
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
GUYLAINE RENAUD,
|
|
Appellant,
|
|
and
|
|
|
|
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
|
|
Respondent.
|
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
Appeal heard on February 24, 2004, at
Montréal, Quebec
|
Before: The Honourable
Deputy Justice S. J. Savoie
|
|
|
|
Appearances:
|
|
|
|
For the Appellant:
|
The Appellant herself
|
|
|
|
Counsel for the Respondent:
|
Ms. Anne Poirier
|
____________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
The
appeal is dismissed and the Minister's decision is confirmed in
accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at Grand-Barachois, New Brunswick, this
20th day of May 2004.
Savoie D.J.
Translation certified true
on this 3rd day of November 2004.
Gerald Woodard, Translator
|
Citation: 2004TCC361
|
|
Date: 20040520
|
|
Docket: 2003-2578(EI)
|
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
GUYLAINE RENAUD,
|
|
Appellant,
|
|
and
|
|
|
|
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
|
|
Respondent.
|
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Savoie J.
[1] This appeal was heard at
Montréal, Quebec, on February 24, 2004.
[2] The issue is to determine the
Appellant's insurable earnings while employed with
Air Canada, the Payor, during the periods from April 16
to May 1, 2001, and October 10 to
November 29, 2001, the periods at issue.
[3] On April 15, 2003, the
Minister of National Revenue (the "Minister") informed
the Appellant of his decision that her insurable earnings during
the periods at issue were $7,071.64 for the period from
April 16 to May 1, 2001, and $2,010.85 for the
period from October 10 to November 29, 2001.
[4] In making his decision, the
Minister relied on the following presumptions of fact:
[TRANSLATION]
(a) During the
periods at issue, the Appellant was employed as a flight
attendant with the Payor; (admitted)
(b) From
August 8, 2000 to January 15, 2001, the
Appellant was on leave due to a work-related accident;
(admitted)
(c) As of
January 16, 2001, the Appellant gradually returned to
work; (admitted)
(d) From
April 16 to May 1, 2001, the Appellant worked
55 hours for the Payor; (admitted)
(e) For those
55 hours, the Appellant was paid $1,845.23 in two
instalments of $1,763.82 and $81.41; (admitted)
(f) In
May 2001, the Payor paid the Appellant $5,226.41 in
accumulated vacation time; (admitted)
(g) From
October 10 to November 29, 2001, the Appellant
worked 113 hours for the payer; (admitted)
(h) For those
113 hours, the Appellant was paid $2,010.85, $1,373.07 of
which was paid in October and $637.78 in November; (subject to
amplification)
[5] At the hearing, the Appellant
filed Exhibit A-1 in support of her claim that the
remuneration is insurable. The Minister filed
Exhibits I-1 to I-6, upon which he relied in
determining the Appellant's actual insurable earnings. These
include the Appellant's Records of Employment, her Statement of
Remuneration Paid (T4) and the statement of amounts paid to
the Appellant by Great West Life as a wage-loss replacement
plan (T4A).
[6] It was established at the hearing
that the Payor had provided differing information to the Minister
and to the Appellant regarding the latter's remuneration.
[7] The hearing permitted the parties
to compare their information in an attempt to resolve the
ambiguity. Once this was done, it was this Court's opinion
that it was demonstrated the Appellant's insurable earnings for
the periods at issue are as indicated in the T4 submitted to the
Appellant. This is Exhibit I-5, and the amount indicated is
$10,857.72.
[8] During the hearing, this Court had
the opportunity to compare the information presented by each
party. Counsel for the Minister stated her position that the
amount paid to the Appellant in compensation for lost wages was
not insurable earnings. This Court believes it must give effect
to this argument, as this matter has never been addressed. The
Appellant did not address it and it was not part of the
proceedings. As a result, it is not necessary for this Court to
rule on the insurability of the amounts paid to the Appellant by
Great West Life.
[9] At the Appellant's request, this
Court agreed to grant her until April 30, 2004, to
produce other documents that she claimed would support her
position. However, no additional documents have been submitted to
date.
[10] The Appellant had the burden of proving
the inaccuracy of the Minister's presumptions. She did not,
however, discharge that burden. Furthermore, she admitted to all
relevant presumptions by the Minister. As a result, the
appropriateness of this Court's intervention has not been
demonstrated.
[11] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed
and the Minister's decision is confirmed.
Signed at Grand-Barachois, New Brunswick, this
20th day of May 2004.
Savoie D.J.
Translation certified true
on this 3rd day of November 2004.
Gerald Woodard, Translator
Email this Content