Hugessen
J.A.:
These
five
applications
for
judicial
review
were
argued
together.
In
one
case,
Dolorès
Bernard,
A-562-95,
the
judge
of
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada
concluded
that
there
was
a
contract
for
services
and
in
our
view,
his
decision
on
that
point
is
unassailable.
In
the
other
four
cases,
however,
the
applicants
contend
that
the
judge
did
not
follow,
or
failed
to
properly
apply,
the
cases
decided
by
this
court,
inter
alia
the
decision
in
Wiebe
Door
Services
Ltd.
v.
Minister
of
National
Revenue
The
tests
set
out
in
Wiebe
Door
can
be
used
as
a
guide
only
in
cases
where
the
Court
has
to
decide
whether
the
relationship
between
a
payer
and
a
worker
is
governed
by
a
contract
of
service
or
a
contract
for
services.
However,
in
many
cases,
including
the
case
at
bar,
the
Court’s
first
task
is
not
to
distinguish
between
these
two
types
of
contracts,
but
rather
to
determine
whether
there
was
really
a
contractual
relationship
between
the
parties.
In
other
words,
there
is
no
need
to
find
that
there
was
a
contract
for
services
in
order
to
rule
out
the
existence
of
a
contract
of
service
and
an
employer-employee
relationship.
In
the
case
at
bar,
the
evidence
was
that
all
the
applicants,
at
the
request
of
the
payer,
agreed
right
from
the
beginning
to
delay
payment
of
their
wages
for
periods
ranging
from
several
months
to
more
than
two
years.
In
these
circumstances,
the
judge
of
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada
certainly
did
not
err
in
holding
that
regardless
of
the
nature
of
the
relationship
between
the
workers
and
the
payer,
it
was
not
the
relationship
that
would
exist
between
employees
and
their
employer;
there
were
no
firm,
reciprocal
obligations
relating
to
payment
and
the
performance
of
services,
which
are
the
essence
of
any
contract
of
employment.
No
doubt
everything
was
done
honestly
and
openly,
but
the
purpose
was
a
joint
venture
rather
than
a
contract
of
service.
The
applications
will
be
dismissed.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content