Pratte
J.A.:
The
sole
issue
this
matter
raises
is
whether
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada
was
justified
in
upholding
the
decision
of
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue,
who
decided
that
the
applicant’s
insurable
earnings
for
the
period
in
ques-
tion
do
not
include
the
amounts
she
received
from
an
insurance
company
under
a
wage
loss
insurance
contract
that
the
City
of
Montréal,
her
employer,
had
taken
out
for
the
benefit
of
its
employees.
In
our
view,
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada’s
decision
is
sound.
However,
we
cannot
agree
with
its
reasons.
Section
2
of
the
Unemployment
Insurance
Act
defines
the
expression
“insurable
earnings”
as
“earnings
from
insurable
employment
...
of
an
insured
person”,
and
that
expression
is
itself
defined
as
follows
in
subsection
3(
1
)
of
the
Unemployment
Insurance
(Collection
of
Premiums)
Regulations:
3(1)
For
the
purposes
of
this
Part,
a
person’s
earnings
from
insurable
employment
means
any
remuneration
...
received
or
enjoyed
by
him,
paid
to
him
by
his
employer
in
respect
of
insurable
employment...
To
understand
that
definition,
regard
must
be
had
to
subsection
2(2)
of
the
same
Regulations,
which
defines
the
term
“employer”
thus:
2(2)
For
the
purposes
of
...
these
Regulations,
“employer”
includes
a
person
who
pays
or
has
paid
remuneration
or
other
earnings
of
an
insured
person
for
services
performed
in
insurable
employment.
It
follows
from
all
of
this
that
a
person’s
insurable
earnings
may,
contrary
to
what
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada
said,
come
from
someone
other
than
the
employer.
Nevertheless,
those
earnings
must
be
paid
“for
services
performed
in
insurable
employment”.
It
is
clear
that
the
insurance
benefits
paid
to
the
applicant
were
not
paid
to
compensate
her
for
services
she
had
performed
in
the
course
of
her
employment.
The
application
for
judicial
review
must
accordingly
be
dismissed.
Application
dismissed.
Email this Content