Date: 19991203
Docket: 98-316-UI; 98-54-CPP
BETWEEN:
JACQUELIN BRISSON,
Appellant,
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent,
and
RUDY HETU LOGGING LTD.,
Intervener.
Reasons for judgment
Lesage, D.J.T.C.C.
[1] This appeal was heard at Québec, Quebec, on October
27, 1999.
[2] The appellant, who was not represented by counsel, was the
only witness at the hearing at Québec. The intervener,
Rudy Hetu Logging Ltd., was represented neither by counsel nor by
one of its officers.
[3] The periods involved are:
(a) April 22 to June 14, 1996, when the appellant worked for
Brubeau Logging Ltd. (BLL), a subcontractor of the intervener,
Rudy Hetu Logging Ltd. The appellant was paid by Brubeau Logging
Ltd., except for one payment made to him by the intervener on
behalf of Brubeau, which was short of cash and which subsequently
repaid the intervener.
(b) June 15 to 18, 1996, when S & B Ltd., another of the
intervener’s subcontractors, hired the appellant to
complete the work, which was paid for by the intervener on
S & B Ltd.’s behalf.
[4] Subparagraphs 5(c), (e), (k), (l) and (o) through (t) of
the Reply to the Notice of Appeal describe the appellant’s
other working conditions:
[TRANSLATION]
(c) BLL hired the appellant to fell trees;
(e) the appellant provided felling services to BLL from April
22 to June 14, 1996;
(k) the appellant was hired by S & B to fell trees and was
paid at a rate of $3.00 a tonne;
(l) the appellant provided felling services to S & B from
June 15 to 18, 1996;
(o) the appellant was not supervised or given any instructions
in performing his work;
(p) the appellant could choose the methods he would use to
complete his work;
(q) the appellant could choose his own hours of work;
(r) the appellant had to provide his own chain saw;
(s) the appellant had to provide gasoline and oil and was
responsible for repairs to his chain saw;
(t) RHLL did not provide the appellant with any tools or
equipment.
[5] The appellant said that he had no knowledge of the
contractual relationship between the intervener and its
subcontractors Brubeau Logging Inc. and B & S Logging
Inc.
[6] The appellant cut timber in the forest for the
subcontractors on a lump-sum basis and was paid according to the
amount of timber felled, cut and delivered to the designated
collection points. He worked alone and set his own schedule.
[7] The appellant’s testimony is consistent with the
written answers he gave on a questionnaire provided to him by the
Appeals Division, CPP/UI Determinations, Edmonton District
Office. The appellant completed the questionnaire on July 9,
1997; it was filed as Exhibit I-1. At the hearing, he admitted
that he had completed and signed that document and he confirmed
its truthfulness; the same applies to appeal No. 98-54(CPP). The
case was thereupon declared closed.
[8] Based on that testimonial and documentary evidence, the
Court is satisfied that:
- the appellant was paid by the intervener’s
subcontractors on a lump-sum basis;
- the appellant owned and was responsible for his tools, his
main tool being his chain saw, with respect to which he took care
of maintenance and paid the cost of repairs, replacement chains
and fuel.
[9] In performing his work, he was not given any instructions
and was not supervised by his employers, namely the
intervener’s subcontractors. He cut timber at the
designated places and delivered it to the collection points. He
was paid based on his output.
[10] The Court is satisfied that the appellant was not the
intervener’s employee.
[11] The Court is also satisfied that an employer-employee
relationship existed between the appellant and the subcontractors
Brubeau Logging Ltd. and B & S Logging Ltd.
[12] The Court declares that the appellant’s employment
with the subcontractors Brubeau Logging Ltd. and B & S Logging
Ltd. from April 22 to June 14, 1996, was not insurable because
there was no control over that employment.
[13] The appeal is dismissed and the Minister’s decision
is confirmed.
Signed at Sillery, Quebec, this 3rd day of December 1999.
"A.J. Lesage"
D.J.T.C.C.
Email this Content