Date: 20010423
Dockets: 2000-4377-CPP,
2000-4378-EI
BETWEEN:
KEN GOODALE AND PATRICIA GOODALE O/A GOOD JANITORIAL,
Appellant,
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent.
Reasonsfor Judgment
Porter, D.J.T.C.C.
[1] These appeals were heard on common evidence by consent of the parties on the 28th of March 2001 at Edmonton, Alberta.
[2] The Appellants have appealed the various decisions of the Minister of National Revenue (the "Minister") dated July 26, 2000 confirming assessments made upon the appellants for employment insurance premiums and Canada Pension Plan contributions for the period January 1 to December 31, 1998 and from January 1 to February 28, 1999 in respect of a number of different workers as set out in Appendices 1, 2 and 3 to this Judgment. The amount of the assessments which was, in some cases, modified by the Minister, is not an issue. The Appellants take issue with the decisions of the Minister that these workers were engaged under contracts of service and were therefore employees. The position of the Appellants is that the workers were engaged under contracts for services as independent contractors. The decisions issued by the Minister were issued pursuant to section 93 of the Employment Insurance Act (the "EI Act") and section 27 of the Canada Pension Plan (the "Plan") and were based on paragraph 5(1)(a) of the EI Act and subsection 6(1) of the Plan respectively. The principles appear to be the same in the case of each worker.
[3] The established facts reveal that the Appellants were in the business of providing janitorial and snow removal services to various businesses and government offices located in and around the Wetaskiwin area, throughout the periods in question. They had originally started the business and operated it themselves, but due to the increase in business they engaged other workers to assist in the provision of the services. They take the position that these other workers were hired as independent contractors under contracts for services. The Minister's decisions were to the contrary. That is the issue before this Court.
The Law
[4] The manner in which the Court should go about deciding whether any particular working arrangement is a contract of service and thus an employer/employee relationship or a contract for services and thus an independent contractor relationship, has been clearly laid out by the Federal Court of Appeal in Wiebe Door Services Ltd. v. M.N.R., 87 DTC 5025. The test to be applied has been further explained by that Court in Moose Jaw Kinsmen Flying Fins Inc. v. M.N.R., 88 DTC 6099. There are, following these cases, numerous decisions of this Court, some of which have been cited by counsel, which demonstrate how these appellate guidelines have been applied. In the Moose Jaw Kinsmen Flying Fins Inc. case, above, the Federal Court of Appeal said this:
"[Analysis]
The definitive authority on this issue in the context of the Act, is the decision of this Court in Wiebe Door Services Ltd. v. The Minister of National Revenue, 87 DTC 5025. MacGuigan J. speaking on behalf of the Court, analyzed Canadian, English and American authorities, and, in particular, referred to the four tests, for making such a determination enunciated by Lord Wright in City of Montreal v. Montreal Locomotive Works Ltd., [1974] 1 D.L.R. 161 at 169-70. He concluded at page 5028 that:
Taken thus in context, Lord Wright's fourfold test [control, ownership of tools, chance of profit, risk of loss] is a general, indeed an overarching test, which involves "examining the whole of the various elements which constitute the relationship between the parties". In his own use of the test to determine the character of the relationship in the Montreal Locomotive Works case itself, Lord Wright combines and integrates the four tests in order to seek out the meaning of the whole transaction.
At page 5029 he said:
... I interpret Lord Wright's test not as the fourfold one it is often described as being but rather as a four-in-one test with emphasis always retained on what Lord Wright, supra, calls "the combined force of the whole scheme of operations," even while the usefulness of the four subordinate criteria is acknowledged.
At page 5030 he had this to say:
What must always remain of the essence is the search for the total relationship of the parties.
He also observed "there is no escape for the trial judge, when confronted with such a problem, from carefully weighing all the facts."
... like MacGuigan J. we view the tests as being useful subordinates in weighing all of the facts relating to the operations of the Applicant. That is now the preferable and proper approach for the very good reason that in a given case, and this may well be one of them, one or more of the tests can have little or no applicability. To formulate a decision then, the overall evidence must be considered taking into account those of the tests which may be applicable and giving to all the evidence the weight which the circumstances may dictate."
[5] The nature of the tests referred to by the Court can be summarized as follows:
a) The degree or absence of control exercised by the alleged employer;
b) Ownership of tools;
c) Chance of profit and risk of loss;
d) Integration of the alleged employee's work into the alleged employer's business.
[6] I also take note of the further words of MacGuigan J., in the Wiebe case, above, where he approved the approach taken in the English courts:
"Perhaps the best synthesis found in the authorities is that of Cooke J. in Market Investigations, Ltd. v. Minister of Social Security, [1968] 3 All E.R. 732, 738-9:
The observations of Lord Wright, of Denning L.J., and of the judges of the Supreme Court in the U.S.A. suggest that the fundamental test to be applied is this: "Is the person who has engaged himself to perform these services performing them as a person in business on his own account?" If the answer to that question is "yes", then the contract is a contract for services. If the answer is "no" then the contract is a contract of service. No exhaustive list has been compiled and perhaps no exhaustive list can be compiled of considerations which are relevant in determining that question, nor can strict rules be laid down as to the relative weight which the various considerations should carry in particular cases. The most that can be said is that control will no doubt always have to be considered, although it can no longer be regarded as the sole determining factor; and that factors, which may be of importance, are such matters as whether the man performing the services provides his own equipment, whether he hires his own helpers, what degree of financial risk be taken, what degree of responsibility for investment and management he has, and whether and how far he has an opportunity of profiting from sound management in the performance of his task. The application of the general test may be easier in a case where the person who engages himself to perform the services does so in the course of an already established business of his own; but this factor is not decisive, and a person who engages himself to perform services for another may well be an independent contractor even though he has not entered into the contract in the course of an existing business carried on by him."
[7] To this I would add the words of Décary, J.A. in Charbonneau v. Canada (M.N.R.) [1996] F.C.J. No. 1337, where speaking for the Federal Court of Appeal he said this:
"The tests laid down by this Court ... are not the ingredients of a magic formula. They are guidelines which it will generally be useful to consider, but not to the point of jeopardizing the ultimate objective of the exercise, which is to determine the overall relationship between the parties. The issue is always, once it has been determined that there is a genuine contract, whether there is a relationship of subordination between the parties such that there is a contract of employment ... or, whether there is ..., such a degree of autonomy that there is a contract of enterprise or for services. ... In other words, we must not pay so much attention to the trees that we lose sight of the forest. ... The parts must give way to the whole."
[8] The Appellant also cited to the Court the case of Vulcain Alarme Inc. v. The Minister of National Revenue, (1999) 249 N.R. 1 in which the Federal Court of Appeal revisited the issue. Létourneau J.A. said this:
"... These tests derived from case law are important, but it should be remembered that they cannot be allowed to compromise the ultimate purpose of the exercise, to establish in general the relationship between the parties. This exercise involves determining whether a relationship of subordination exists between the parties such that the Court must conclude that there was a contract of employment within the meaning of art. 2085 of the Civil Code of Quebec, or whether instead there was between them the degree of independence which characterises a contract of enterprise or for services...."
[9]He also said later in the same Judgment:
"A contractor who, for example, works on site on a subcontract does not serve his customers but those of the payer, that is the general contractor who has retained his services. The fact that Mr. Blouin had to report to the plaintiff's premises once a month to get his service sheets and so to learn the list of customers requiring service, and consequently the places where his services would be provided, does not make him an employee. A contractor performing work for a business has to know the places where services are required and their frequency just as an employee does under a contract of employment. Priority in performance of the work required of a worker is not the apanage of a contract of employment. Contractors or subcontractors are also often approached by various influential customers who force them to set priorities in providing their services or to comply with the customers' requirements."
he also said:
"... Although Mr. Blouin's income was calculated on an hourly basis, the number of hours of work were determined by the number of service sheets he received from the plaintiff. Mr. Blouin and his company thus had no guaranteed income. Unlike the technicians working as employees within the plaintiff's business, whose weekly salary was constant, Mr. Blouin's income fluctuated with the service calls. In fact, towards the end of his contract with the plaintiff Mr. Blouin was no longer doing the equivalent of forty hours a month as he was receiving few service sheets.
Further, Mr. Blouin, who used his own vehicle for work, had to pay the losses resulting from an accident in which he was involved and obtain another vehicle."
The Facts
[10] The Minister in the Replies to the Notices of Appeal was said to admit the following facts:
a) The Appellants and each of them have been engaged in a partnership known as Good Janitorial carrying on business in and around Wetaskiwin, Alberta, since 1996.
These premises are open at varied hours. The janitorial services must be performed after the close of business and before the business is open for the next business day.
The Appellants have not taken any deductions for Canada Pension Plan or Employment Insurance.
b) They are presently providing janitorial services to fourteen (14) major enterprises in the Wetaskiwin area. These include the Provincial Government, the City of Wetaskiwin and several of the major car dealerships carrying on business in that jurisdiction.
c) The Appellants obtained contracts to provide the janitorial services through various methods including that of tendering on government and other related projects.
d) The Appellants give general guidelines as to the nature of the janitorial work that has to be performed for each client.
e) The Appellants do not supply daily supervision.
[11] In coming to his decisions, the Minister was said in the Replies to the Notices of Appeal signed on his behalf, to have relied upon the following assumptions of fact:
"(a) the facts admitted above, some of which have been repeated here for ease of reference;
(b) the Appellant is in the business of providing janitorial and snow removal services to businesses located in and around Wetaskiwin, Alberta;
(c) the Appellant hired the workers stated in "Schedule A" and "Schedule B" (hereinafter the "Workers") to perform the janitorial and snow removal services for the clients of the Appellant;
(d) the Appellant did not enter into written contracts with the Workers;
(e) except for Tom Muller, who was hired to provide snow removal services only, the Workers were all hired to perform janitorial services for the Appellant;
(f) the Workers performed their services at the place of business of the clients of the Appellant;
(g) the Appellant provided the Workers with the keys to its clients' place of business where the services were performed;
(h) the Appellant provided the Workers with a list of daily, weekly, monthly and semi-annual duties they were required to perform;
(i) the Appellant paid the Workers by the hour, job or month;
(j) the rate of pay that the Workers received was determined by the Appellant;
(k) the Appellant did not require that the Workers submit an invoice in order to be paid;
(l) although the Workers normally performed their duties from Monday to Friday after the businesses of the Appellant's clients had closed for the day, they sometimes performed their duties on Saturday or Sunday as well;
(m) the Workers were required to perform their services while the businesses of the Appellant's clients were closed;
(n) the Workers were required to perform their duties personally;
(o) the Appellant instructed the Workers with respect to what services were expected to be performed;
(p) the Workers work was subject to inspection by either the Appellant or the building manager where the services were performed;
(q) if the work was not done satisfactorily, the Workers were required to redo the work;
(r) if the work of the Workers was not done satisfactorily, the Workers could be subject to a reprimand or termination by the Appellant.
(s) the Appellant was responsible for any problems with respect to the work of the Workers;
(t) although one of the Workers may provide a piece of equipment, generally the Appellant provided the Workers with all the equipment necessary to perform their duties, including, vacuum cleaners, floor shampooers, brooms, dust cloths and wash cloths;
(u) the Appellant provided the Workers with the supplies necessary to perform their duties, including soaps, cleaners, bleaches and waxes, as the Appellant wanted to maintain a high quality of the cleaning supplies that were used;
(v) the Workers did not incur, nor were they required to incur, any expenses in the performance of their duties;
(w) most of the Workers were hired by the Appellant as a result of responding to newspaper advertisements placed by the Appellant;
(x) the Appellant paid the Workers' Compensation Board premiums in respect of the Workers;
(y) the Workers were not required to bid on the jobs that they did;
(z) the services performed by the Workers were an indispensable and integral part of the Appellant's business operations; and
(aa) the Workers did not charge or collect goods and services tax from the Appellant in respect of the services performed by them."
[12] The Appellants agreed with items (a), (b), (c), (d), (f), (g), (k), (l), (m), (o), (p), (q), (r), (z), and (aa).
[13] The Appellants disagreed with the following items, namely: (e), (h), (i), (j), (n), (s), (t), (u), (v), (w), (x), and (y).
[14] Evidence was given by Ken Goodale on behalf of himself and his wife, being the joint operators of this business. I had no difficulty with his evidence. I felt that he was an honest witness who quite naturally intended to look at the situation strictly from his own point of view. Patricia Goodale did not give evidence. The Minister called two of the workers, namely Valerie Lange and Luann Hansen, both of whom I found to be quite honest witnesses. It is apparent that there had been some level of dispute between Luann Hansen and the Appellants, however, I was of the view that she gave her evidence quite honestly.
[15] With regard to items (h), (i), and (j), Ken Goodale said that the amount paid for each job was really determined by the nature of the building to be cleaned and the services that were required therein. He would figure out how many hours he thought it would take in a month to do the job and then apply a figure to that amount and offer the job for that amount to one of the workers. The worker was invited to attend and look at the premises and either agree or disagree or negotiate on the figure offered. In point of fact, the evidence seems to reveal that most workers agreed with the figure that was offered to them and I have no doubt that Mr. Goodale was always attempting to be quite fair with his workers.
[16] With respect to item (n), Mr. Goodale said that once the work was assigned to a worker, he was not really concerned as to whether they did it personally or had somebody else stand in for them or help them as they saw fit. He really stressed that it was a matter for them as long as the work was done and it was done to the necessary standard required by the client.
[17] The witness said that although he was responsible for any problems with respect to the work of the workers, invariably he had no knowledge of any problems as the clients would tend to leave notes for the cleaners themselves. It was only if they had tried to work it out with the workers at the site and nothing had been achieved that he would be contacted by one of the clients. Then he would either contact the worker or leave a note for them indicating that he had been contacted and requesting whatever service was to be performed as requested.
[18] The Appellants disagreed with items (t) and (u). However, it is apparent that on the whole, the equipment was either provided by the Appellants or by the clients in their own premises. There was apparently one worker who used his own vacuum cleaner and some workers who wished to use particular cleaning materials. However, on the whole, all of these items were provided by the Appellants or by the client.
[19] With respect to item (v), although the Appellants said they disagreed with this item on the whole, it is quite apparent from the evidence that the workers were not required to incur any expenses other than travelling to and from their place of work.
[20] With respect to item (w), the two workers called by the Minister, each responded to newspaper advertisements placed by the Appellants. However, it may have been because he was known in the business that others approached him directly for contracts, but I did not see any great divergence in the evidence in this respect.
[21] With respect to item (x), it is apparent that the Appellants held a blanket Workers' Compensation Board policy with respect to all the workers working in the various premises on their behalf.
[22] In giving his evidence, the witness said that he and his wife had started the business in 1993. By 1996, the business had grown substantially so they needed some assistance. They presently have some 14 accounts that they are operating in the City of Wetaskiwin which vary from a museum to City Hall and a Provincial Government building. He said that they tendered for most of the contracts that they have. He said that they took out blanket liability insurance and bonding for people working for them in the various premises, as well as blanket coverage at the Workers' Compensation Board. He said he did this because individual people often could not get coverage, certainly not at an economical rate. He said all his contracts with the workers were verbal. He had no written contracts. He said none of the workers charged G.S.T. and they did not send an invoice to him. When the workers first approached him for a position, he said he would go through the building with them, explain what was expected of them, indicate a price that he thought it was worth, and they were free if they wished to negotiate that with him, but generally they tended to accept what he offered to them. Again, he stressed that once they started working, he did not deal with the clients unless things got serious. Generally the workers dealt with those themselves at the client premises.
[23] The witness said that they do not tell the workers how to dress. The workers wore no badges or signage. They were paid no mileage or travelling costs. They all had their own keys issued by the clients or the codes from the clients' buildings to open doors and deal with the question of alarms. If these were changed, sometimes he would not know himself as it was left very much up to the workers. The work generally was done after the close of business in each of the premises. He had no knowledge when they went in. They might go in at 4:30 p.m. when the other employees left, or they might go in at 3:00 in the morning, and that was of no concern to him, as long as the work was done prior to the opening of business the following day. Some workers did more than one building for him. For instance on Friday night, he said he was not concerned whether they went in on Friday evening or on Saturday or Sunday as long as the work was completed before Monday morning. He was not concerned about how long or quickly they did it because the price was always the same. He said a good working person might do it quicker and then take on other contracts; that was entirely a matter for them. He said it was often some 5 to 6 weeks between times when he would visit a building. The evidence from the witness for the Minister was that the Appellant was seen more frequently than at the premises at which they were working.
[24] The witness stressed that the original deal with the workers was that there would be no deductions and they would be responsible for their own Canada Pension Plan and employment insurance premiums and income tax.
[25] The witness stressed again that sometimes he supplied the tools, sometimes the buildings supplied the tools, and sometimes the workers brought their own tools. On the whole from the evidence I gleaned, however, that the majority of tools were either provided by the client or by the Appellants. It was quite clear that the Appellants provided most of the cleaning materials needed, because they purchased good quality products which they could obtain much more cheaply than could any individual worker. The evidence from one of the workers was that if anything was short in the way of materials, they would just let him know and he would make sure that those materials were provided.
[26] The witness agreed that basically he operated the business from his home. The only qualification that the workers needed was to have some experience in cleaning. In some buildings, they needed to have a criminal record check which they were required to get from the RCMP themselves before he would engage them. Again, he stressed that if there were replacements for the workers that he had engaged, that is if they brought replacements in for themselves, he often would not even know about it.
[27] When Valerie Lange gave evidence, it was clear that she pretty well confirmed all that Mr. Goodale had said. She did not have any other cleaning contracts. She considered herself his employee; she incurred no expenses and she apparently did not report her income to Revenue Canada, no doubt because this was her only income and fell below any level on which she would have to pay tax.
[28] Luann Hansen said very much the same things. However, it is apparent that she felt that both her husband and herself were hired to do the job as a team rather than individuals. There was some difficulty with their work and apparently Mr. and Mrs. Goodale assisted them in the work they were doing and they in turn came to the building that Mr. and Mrs. Goodale were doing and assisted them in the work they were doing. This was at the direction of Mr. and Mrs. Goodale. Again, she said that she did not declare this income on her income tax return as she had no other income.
[29] Those, then are the salient facts as I find them.
Application of the 4 Part Test to the Facts
[30] It is not so much the label put upon the arrangement by the parties that the Court must consider as the substance of those arrangements. Whilst the Court should no doubt give due deference to the type of arrangement chosen by the parties if nothing in the evidence tends to derogate from the substance of that arrangement, if in fact the substance is not in accord with the label put upon the arrangements by the parties, then it is the substance that the Court must consider.
[31] Control: When considering the matter of control, the Court must consider not so much the actual control exercised by the employer, but whether there was a right to control the worker. The more professional, more capable any particular worker may be, the less control may actually be exercised. Thus, it is the right to control which must be considered in this aspect of the test. In these cases, it appears that in the normal everyday situation, there was a considerable degree of independence on the part of the workers as to how they went about their work. They were shown what the client required to have done. After that, the workers were very much left to their own resources as to how they went about their work, whom they took in with them to assist and when they attended to their duties. They tended to handle complaints themselves and it was only if matters became serious that either Mr. or Mrs. Goodale would become involved. The significant point, however, is that it was at that point that they could become involved as they did with Mr. and Mrs. Hansen. They would redirect their duties to other places and that the work be done in a different manner. Thus, although there was a certain amount of de facto independence from the Appellants, the workers, in my view, still were significantly subject to being controlled and directed by the Appellants if the latter so chose in any particular circumstances. Whilst there is an element of independence here, on balance, this aspect of the test tends to point towards an employer-employee situation and a contract of service, rather than a contract for services with an independent contractor.
[32] Tools and Equipment: There was very little evidence, if any, of a provision of tools and equipment and materials by the workers. There was a suggestion that one worker used his own vacuum cleaner, but no details were forthcoming of that. On the other hand, it is quite clear that either the Appellants or the clients provided the equipment that was to be used in the various premises in the vast majority of situations. In any event, there was no suggestion that any of the workers incurred any significant costs with respect to the provision of any tools, equipment, materials or supplies. This aspect of the test, in my view, clearly points to a contract of service between the Appellants and the workers. Independent contractors would be far more likely to have their own tools and equipment as well as materials and supplies, which they would use on a regular basis.
[33] Profit and Loss: The pay accorded to the workers by the Appellants was really by the piece. The building was assessed for what the job was worth and that amount was paid for that building on a monthly basis. It is true that is how the Appellants themselves contracted with the clients as independent contractors. Nonetheless, they had a business they were running. There were no expenses incurred by any of the workers, other than the gas for their motor vehicles to get to and from their place of work. Whilst, if they worked efficiently and effectively, they might have spent somewhat less time at each job than anticipated, they were still only going to receive the same amount and they had neither ongoing expenses to incur, nor any additional profits to attain if they did so. They were simply paid for the job they did. I see nothing of an entrepreneurial nature in these situations which would lead me to a conclusion that they stood to make a profit or were at risk of sustaining a loss in the entrepreneurial sense of this aspect of the test. This test, therefore, also in my view, points more towards a contract of service than a contract for services.
[34] Integration: There is no doubt at all that the Appellants were in business for themselves. The question rather to be asked is whether or not the workers were in business for themselves also, or was what they were doing really integrated into the business of the Appellants? The question which has to be asked is "whose business were the workers involved in?" There is nothing that I have been able to glean from the evidence which would lead me to the view that any of these workers were in business for themselves in the entrepreneurial sense. It would seem that most, if not all of them, responded to advertisements placed by the Appellants in newspapers to do work for the Appellants at and in premises of clients with whom the Appellants had already entered into contracts. The question is whether they were in business for themselves or whether they were really part-time employees of the Appellants, paid by the piece. Quite frankly, when I weigh all of the evidence, I am inclined to the latter view. I do not have any doubt in my mind that Mr. Goodale told each of them that they were independent contractors and that they would be responsible for their own statutory deductions. That, however, does not make them independent contractors. It appears to be a popularly held misconception among the general public that all that is required is simply to say that a person will become an independent contractor and they become so. Clearly, the law does not correspond with that view. These were isolated work opportunities for these workers and I see not one iota of evidence that would suggest that any of them considered themselves to be in business for themselves, rather than working for and in the business of the Appellant. There was nothing which they were doing that had any entrepreneurial aspect to it. The situation of the Hansens being employed as a team is something of an anomaly, but insufficient to detract from my overall view of the situation. Mrs. Hansen was clearly the worker engaged. This aspect of the test clearly, in my view, points to contracts of service rather than contracts for services.
Conclusion
[35] At the end of the day, in this case, when I look not just at the individual trees, all of which in my view, bear the markings of contracts of services, but stand back and look at the whole forest, I see only a picture of an employment situation and not that of an independent contractor. In my view, there was not sufficient entrepreneurial independence from the Appellants on the part of the workers to say that they were engaged by way of contracts for services.
[36] Before concluding, I would allude briefly to the genuinely held belief of Mr. Goodale that he was setting up the arrangement in a perfectly correct fashion. As I say, it appears to be a publicly held misconception that all one has to do is to say it is so in order to make it so, whereas in fact the law does not correspond with that. I have no doubts at all in my mind that the Appellants proceeded genuinely and honestly in setting up the arrangements that they did, believing them to be independent contracts for services with subcontractors. The fact that this is now held not to be so after a complete and thorough review of all of the evidence now leaves them in a somewhat vulnerable situation to pay significant premiums with, I am sure, interest and penalties which will, no doubt, be a significant burden upon them. I believe the Appellants acted in good faith in doing what they did. They will be unable to collect the employee portion of these premiums and contributions from the workers and this will simply, by virtue of that, bear a substantial burden. They are undoubtedly hard working people and I would respectfully urge the Minister to tread lightly with respect to the imposition of interest and penalties in final resolution of this matter.
[37] In the result, the appeals are dismissed and the decisions of the Minister are confirmed.
Signed at Calgary, Alberta, this 23rd day of April 2001.
"Michael H. Porter"
D.J.T.C.C.
Appendix 1
Kevin Goodale
Rochelle Mossop
Tom Muller
Val Pepin
James Read
Terry Rehaume
Rob Rowan
Steven Van Erp
Appendix 2
Darcy Barns
Judy Bedford
Dave Cowan
Velda Doward
Jamie Frank
Dave Hodgins
Tom Muller
Mike Oakes
Shirley Schachschnieder
Ken Yee
King Yee
Appendix 3
Christina Bablitz
Barb Churney
Darrel Day
Luann Hansen
Darrel Kaiser
Carolyn Klooster
Val Lange
Darren Larsen
Kurt Leicheit
Gayle Seim
Bart Silverthorne
Ross Wotherspoon
COURT FILE NO.: 2000-4377(CPP)
STYLE OF CAUSE: Ken Goodale and Patricia Goodale o/a Good Janitorial and M.N.R.
PLACE OF HEARING: Edmonton, Alberta
DATE OF HEARING: March 28, 2001
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: The Honourable Deputy Judge M.H. Porter
DATE OF JUDGMENT: April 23, 2001
APPEARANCES:
Counsel for the Appellant: Russell A. Flint
Counsel for the Respondent: Gwen Mah
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For the Appellant:
Name: Russell A. Flint
Firm: Snyder and Company
Edmonton, Alberta
For the Respondent: Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, CanadaCOURT FILE NO.: 2000-4378(EI)
STYLE OF CAUSE: Ken Goodale and Patricia Goodale o/a Good Janitorial and M.N.R.
PLACE OF HEARING: Edmonton, Alberta
DATE OF HEARING: March 28, 2001
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: The Honourable Deputy Judge M.H. Porter
DATE OF JUDGMENT: April 23, 2001
APPEARANCES:
Counsel for the Appellant: Russell A. Flint
Counsel for the Respondent: Gwen Mah
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For the Appellant:
Name: Russell A. Flint
Firm: Snyder and Company
Edmonton, Alberta
For the Respondent: Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Canada
2000-4377(CPP)
BETWEEN:
KEN GOODALE AND PATRICIA GOODALE O/A GOOD JANITORIAL,
Appellant,
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent.
Appeal heard on common evidence with the appeal of Ken Goodale and Patricia Goodale o/a Good Janitorial (2000-4378(EI)) on March 28, 2001 at Edmonton, Alberta, by
the Honourable Deputy Judge Michael H. Porter
Appearances
Counsel for the Appellant: Russell A. Flint
Counsel for the Respondent: Gwen Mah
JUDGMENT
The appeal is dismissed and the decision of the Minister is confirmed in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at Calgary, Alberta, this 23rd day of April 2001.
|
"Michael H. Porter" |
D.J.T.C.C.
2000-4378(EI)
BETWEEN:
KEN GOODALE AND PATRICIA GOODALE O/A GOOD JANITORIAL,
Appellant,
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent.
Appeal heard on common evidence with the appeal of Ken Goodale and Patricia Goodale o/a Good Janitorial (2000-4377(CPP)) on March 28, 2001 at Edmonton, Alberta, by
the Honourable Deputy Judge Michael H. Porter
Appearances
Counsel for the Appellant: Russell A. Flint
Counsel for the Respondent: Gwen Mah
JUDGMENT
The appeal is dismissed and the decision of the Minister is confirmed in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at Calgary, Alberta, this 23rd day of April 2001.
|
"Michael H. Porter" |
D.J.T.C.C.