Docket: 2015-1380(EI)
2015-1381(CPP)
BETWEEN:
LUCIEN CARRIER,
Appellant,
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent.
Appeal heard on May 1, 2017, at
Miramichi, New Brunswick
Before:
The Honourable Justice Robert J. Hogan
Appearances:
|
For the Appellant:
|
The Appellant himself
|
|
Counsel for the Respondent:
|
Sheherazade Ghorashy
|
JUDGMENT
The
appeal from the Minister of National Revenue’s decisions dated January 6, 2015
regarding the pensionability and insurability of the Appellant’s employment is
dismissed and the Minister’s decisions are confirmed in accordance with the
attached reasons for judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada,
this 1st day of June 2017.
“Robert J. Hogan”
Citation:
2017 TCC 101
Date: 20170601
Docket: 2015-1380(EI)
2015-1381(CPP)
BETWEEN:
LUCIEN
CARRIER,
Appellant,
and
THE
MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent.
REASONS
FOR JUDGMENT
Hogan J.
[1]
The Appellant, Lucien Carrier, is appealing a
decision of the Minister of National Revenue (the “Minister”) dated January 6,
2015 regarding the total number of insurable hours for the period from August
2, 2010 to October 31, 2010 (the “2010 Period”) and the period from August 1,
2011 to October 15, 2011 (the “2011 Period”).
[2]
The Appellant is relying on his pay records
which indicate that he had 457 and 546 insurable hours for the 2010 Period and
2011 Period respectively. The Minister determined that the Appellant’s pay
records overstated the number of hours worked by the Appellant in the relevant
periods for the purpose of entitling him to claim employment insurance and
increasing his pensionable earnings. The Minister determined that the Appellant
actually worked 447 hours in the 2010 Period and 446 hours in the 2011 Period.
[3]
The evidence shows that the Appellant worked for
Layne Godin/Godin’s Sea Products (the “Payer”) during the crab season. He drove
a truck that belonged to the Payer and delivered crab to the Payer’s clients.
[4]
An investigation of the Payer’s activities began
in 2009. The Payer was suspected of issuing falsified records of employment for
the purpose of qualifying individuals for employment insurance benefits that
they were not entitled to receive. Ultimately, the Payer was convicted of an
offence in regard to this matter. In some cases the individuals provided no
services whatsoever to the Payer. In other cases, the number of hours worked by
the individuals was overstated.
[5]
My colleague Justice Favreau rendered a judgment
in an appeal brought by the Payer with respect to individuals who were found
either not to have been employed by the Payer for the 2007, 2008 and 2009
lobster and crab seasons or not to have worked the number of hours shown on
their records of employment for those periods.
In that case, Justice Favreau concluded that the Minister’s determination of
the appellant workers’ insurable hours was correct and that the Payer’s
employment records overstated the number of hours worked by its employees.
[6]
The Appellant claims to have done odd jobs for
the Payer before and after the crab season, including cutting firewood and
doing lawn maintenance. He offered no corroborating evidence for his testimony.
More importantly, the Respondent’s witnesses observed that similar explanations
were given by others of the Payer’s alleged workers whose records of employment
were found to be inaccurate. The Appellant had the burden of showing that the
Minister’s determination of his insurable hours was inaccurate. He has failed
to do so.
[7]
The Appellant also filed an appeal with respect
to the Minister’s determination that he was engaged in pensionable employment
with the Payer during the periods from August 15, 2010 to November 6, 2010 and
from July 27, 2011 to October 29, 2011. Considering the Notice of Appeal filed
by the Appellant, I discern that there was no issue in dispute between the
parties in this regard, as the Appellant’s position is identical to that of the
Respondent.
[8]
For all of these reasons, the Appellant’s appeal
is dismissed.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 1st
day of June 2017.
“Robert J. Hogan”
|
CITATION:
|
2017 TCC 101
|
|
COURT FILE
NO.:
|
2015-1380(EI)
2015-1381(CPP)
|
|
STYLE OF
CAUSE:
|
LUCIEN CARRIER v. M.N.R.
|
|
PLACE OF
HEARING:
|
Miramichi, New Brunswick
|
|
DATE OF
HEARING:
|
May 1, 2017
|
|
REASONS FOR
JUDGMENT BY:
|
The Honourable Justice Robert J. Hogan
|
|
DATE OF
JUDGMENT:
|
June 1, 2017
|
APPEARANCES:
|
For the
Appellant:
|
The Appellant
himself
|
|
Counsel for
the Respondent:
|
for the 2010
Period and 2011 Period
|
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For the Appellant:
|
Name:
|
|
|
Firm:
|
|
|
For the Respondent:
|
William F. Pentney
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Canada
|