Décary
J.A.:
There
was,
in
our
view,
ample
evidence
to
support
the
finding
by
the
Tax
Court
Judge
that
the
applicant,
who
was
employed
by
her
son,
was
engaged
in
excepted
employment
under
paragraph
3(2)(c)
of
the
Unemployment
Insurance
Act
and
section
251
of
the
Income
Tax
Act.
More
particularly,
the
fact
that
the
applicant
had
agreed
to
be
paid
with
lump
sums
unlike
the
other
employees;
the
fact
that
the
applicant
received
only
one
check
for
each
of
the
two
periods
at
issue
(lasting,
respectively,
22
weeks
and
13
weeks);
the
fact
that
the
check
with
respect
to
the
first
period
was
negotiated
for
cash
and
the
check
with
respect
to
the
second
period
was
not
negotiated
until
eighteen
months
later
because
the
employer
was
waiting
for
a
check
from
a
client;
the
fact
that
the
applicant’s
remuneration
was
twice
that
of
the
best
paid
of
the
other
employees
and
the
fact
that
Unemployment
Insurance
and
Pension
Plan
premiums
were
withheld
from
the
applicant’s
salary,
but
that
no
income
tax
deductions
were
made,
are
all
facts
that
enabled
the
Tax
Court
Judge
to
conclude
on
the
whole
of
the
evidence
that
the
applicant
and
her
son
would
not
“have
entered
into
such
a
contract
of
employment
if
they
had
been
dealing
at
arm’s
length”.
The
application
for
judicial
review
will
therefore
be
dismissed.
Application
dismissed.
Email this Content