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
BETWEEN:
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
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
DATE OF HEARING: November 29, 2006
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: NADON J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: DESJARDINS and NOËL, JJ.A.
APPEARANCES::
|
FOR THE APPELLANTS |
|
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT |
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
Sainte-Foy, Quebec |
FOR THE APPELLANTS
|
|
Montréal, Quebec |
FOR THE RESPONDENT |