Date: 20061130
Dockets: A-689-04
A-690-04
A-691-04
A-693-04
A-694-04
A-695-04
A-696-04
A-697-04
A-698-04
A-699-04
A-701-04
A-702-04
A-704-04
A-705-04
Citation: 2006 FCA
392
CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A.
NOËL
J.A.
NADON J.A.
BETWEEN:
CLAUDE TREMBLAY
Appellant
and
MINISTER OF
NATIONAL REVENUE
Respondent
__________________________________________________
BETWEEN:
JACQUES
TREMBLAY
Appellant
and
MINISTER OF
NATIONAL REVENUE
Respondent
__________________________________________________
BETWEEN:
MICHEL TREMBLAY
Appellant
and
MINISTER OF
NATIONAL REVENUE
Respondent
__________________________________________________
BETWEEN:
RÉMI TREMBLAY
Appellant
and
MINISTER OF
NATIONAL REVENUE
Respondent
__________________________________________________
BETWEEN:
NADINE
LEBLOND
Appellant
and
MINISTER OF
NATIONAL REVENUE
Respondent
__________________________________________________
BETWEEN:
SÉBASTIEN ROY
Appellant
and
MINISTER OF
NATIONAL REVENUE
Respondent
__________________________________________________
BETWEEN:
BENOÎT ROY
Appellant
and
MINISTER OF
NATIONAL REVENUE
Respondent
__________________________________________________
BETWEEN:
ALEX FOURNIER
Appellant
and
MINISTER OF
NATIONAL REVENUE
Respondent
__________________________________________________
BETWEEN:
STÉPHANE
AUBUT
Appellant
and
MINISTER OF
NATIONAL REVENUE
Respondent
__________________________________________________
BETWEEN:
DENIS
LÉVESQUE
Appellant
and
MINISTER OF
NATIONAL REVENUE
Respondent
__________________________________________________
BETWEEN:
MARTINE CÔTÉ
Appellant
and
MINISTER OF
NATIONAL REVENUE
Respondent
__________________________________________________
BETWEEN:
STÉPHANE
APRIL
Appellant
and
MINISTER OF
NATIONAL REVENUE
Respondent
__________________________________________________
BETWEEN:
GUY ROUSSEAU
Appellant
and
MINISTER OF
NATIONAL REVENUE
Respondent
__________________________________________________
BETWEEN:
VALÈRE
JALBERT
Appellant
and
MINISTER OF
NATIONAL REVENUE
Respondent
Hearing held at Québec,
Quebec, on November 29, 2006.
Judgment delivered at Québec, Quebec, on November 30, 2006.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Date:
20061130
Dockets: A-689-04
A-690-04
A-691-04
A-693-04
A-694-04
A-695-04
A-696-04
A-697-04
A-698-04
A-699-04
A-701-04
A-702-04
A-704-04
A-705-04
Citation: 2006 FCA 392
CORAM: DESJARDINS
J.A.
NOËL
J.A.
NADON
J.A
BETWEEN:
CLAUDE
TREMBLAY
Appellant
and
MINISTER OF
NATIONAL REVENUE
Respondent
__________________________________________________
BETWEEN:
JACQUES
TREMBLAY
Appellant
and
MINISTER OF
NATIONAL REVENUE
Respondent
__________________________________________________
BETWEEN:
MICHEL
TREMBLAY
Appellant
and
MINISTER OF
NATIONAL REVENUE
Respondent
__________________________________________________
BETWEEN:
RÉMI TREMBLAY
Appellant
and
MINISTER OF
NATIONAL REVENUE
Respondent
__________________________________________________
BETWEEN:
NADINE
LEBLOND
Appellant
and
MINISTER OF
NATIONAL REVENUE
Respondent
__________________________________________________
BETWEEN:
SÉBASTIEN ROY
Appellant
and
MINISTER OF
NATIONAL REVENUE
Respondent
__________________________________________________
BETWEEN:
BENOÎT ROY
Appellant
and
MINISTER OF
NATIONAL REVENUE
Respondent
__________________________________________________
BETWEEN:
ALEX FOURNIER
Appellant
and
MINISTER OF
NATIONAL REVENUE
Respondent
__________________________________________________
BETWEEN:
STÉPHANE
AUBUT
Appellant
and
MINISTER OF
NATIONAL REVENUE
Respondent
__________________________________________________
BETWEEN:
DENIS
LÉVESQUE
Appellant
and
MINISTER OF
NATIONAL REVENUE
Respondent
__________________________________________________
BETWEEN:
MARTINE CÔTÉ
Appellant
and
MINISTER OF
NATIONAL REVENUE
Respondent
__________________________________________________
BETWEEN:
STÉPHANE
APRIL
Appellant
and
MINISTER OF
NATIONAL REVENUE
Respondent
__________________________________________________
BETWEEN:
GUY ROUSSEAU
Appellant
and
MINISTER OF
NATIONAL REVENUE
Respondent
__________________________________________________
BETWEEN:
VALÈRE
JALBERT
Appellant
and
MINISTER OF
NATIONAL REVENUE
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE
COURT
[1]
The
appellants, 14 in number, are appealing a decision of Mr. Justice Angers of the
Tax Court of Canada dated February 10, 2004.
[2]
In his
decision, the judge upheld the decision of the Minister of National Revenue
(the Minister) dated February 7, 2000, that the employment of five of the
appellants at Service Agro‑mécanique inc. (the employer) was not
insurable on the ground that they would not have entered into a similar
contract of employment had they been dealing with the employer at arm’s length.
With respect to the nine other appellants, the Minister determined their insurable
hours and insurable earnings.
[3]
Specifically,
the judge found that it was reasonable for the Minister to decide that the
employment of the five appellants who were not at arm’s length with their
employer was not insurable; in the case of the nine other appellants, the judge
concluded that, absent sufficient evidence, the Minister’s determination
regarding their insurable hours and insurable earnings should not be altered.
[4]
Despite
the efforts of their counsel, Mr. St-Jean, the appellants have not persuaded me
that Angers J. made an error in fact or in law that would justify our
intervention.
[5]
Regarding
the appellants who were not at arm’s length with the employer, the judge
considered, inter alia, the documentary evidence indicating that they
were frequently and regularly at their place of employment outside of their
work period; the judge also considered the employer’s minutes of meetings,
which supported the respondent’s position that a scheme to abuse the employment
insurance system had been put in place.
[6]
In
addition, the judge considered and rejected the appellants’ argument that they
were working without pay since, in his view, the amount of work produced by the
appellants was completely unreasonable and, consequently, could only amount to
an abuse of the employment insurance system.
[7]
Finally,
the judge did not believe the appellants’ testimony that they had not done much
work while they were laid off.
[8]
The judge
came to similar conclusions with respect to the nine appellants who were at
arm’s length with the employer.
[9]
First, he
did not accept their testimony regarding the time spent at their place of
employment while they were laid off given that, in his opinion, they had tried
to minimize how often they were there.
[10]
Based on
the documentary evidence before him, the judge was satisfied that these
appellants were frequently and regularly at their place of employment.
[11]
He also
took into account, correctly in my view, that the employer had pleaded guilty
to 29 counts of issuing false records of employment.
[12]
Accordingly,
I would dismiss the appeal with costs. A copy of these reasons will be placed
in each of the related dockets in lieu of reasons.
“Marc Noël”
“I
concur.
Desjardins,
J.A.”
“I
concur.
Nadon,
J.A.”
Certified
true translation
Mary
Jo Egan, LLB
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKETS: A-689-04,
A-690-04, A-691-04, A-693-04, A-694-04, A-695-04, A-696-04; A-697-04, A-698-04,
A-699-04, A-701-04; A-702-04, A-704-04, A-705-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: Claude
Tremblay, Jacques Tremblay, Michel Tremblay, Rémi Tremblay, Nadine Leblond,
Sébastien Roy, Benoît Roy, Alex Fournier, Stéphane Aubut, Denis Lévesque,
Martine Côté, Stéphane April, Guy Rousseau, Valère Jalbert v. MINISTER OF
NATIONAL REVENUE
PLACE OF HEARING: Québec
DATE OF HEARING: November 29, 2006
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: NADON J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: DESJARDINS and NOËL, JJ.A.
DATED: November 30, 2006
APPEARANCES::
|
Frédéric St-Jean
|
FOR THE APPELLANTS
|
|
Simon-Nicolas Crépin
|
FOR
THE RESPONDENT
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
Frédéric St-Jean
Sainte-Foy,
Quebec
|
FOR THE APPELLANTS
|
|
Department of Justice Canada
Montréal,
Quebec
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|
Email this Content