|
Docket: 2003-2578(EI) |
|
BETWEEN: |
|
GUYLAINE RENAUD, |
|
Appellant, |
|
and |
|
|
|
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE, |
|
Respondent. |
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
Appeal heard on February 24, 2004, at Montréal, Quebec
|
Before: The Honourable Deputy Justice S. J. Savoie |
|
|
|
|
|
Appearances: |
|
|
|
|
|
For the Appellant: |
The Appellant herself |
|
|
|
|
Counsel for the Respondent: |
Ms. Anne Poirier |
____________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
The appeal is dismissed and the Minister's decision is confirmed in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at Grand-Barachois, New Brunswick, this 20th day of May 2004.
|
"S. J. Savoie" |
Savoie D.J.
Translation certified true
on this 3rd day of November 2004.
Gerald Woodard, Translator
|
Citation: 2004TCC361 |
|
Date: 20040520 |
|
Docket: 2003-2578(EI) |
|
BETWEEN: |
|
GUYLAINE RENAUD, |
|
Appellant, |
|
and |
|
|
|
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE, |
|
Respondent. |
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Savoie J.
[1] This appeal was heard at Montréal, Quebec, on February 24, 2004.
[2] The issue is to determine the Appellant's insurable earnings while employed with Air Canada, the Payor, during the periods from April 16 to May 1, 2001, and October 10 to November 29, 2001, the periods at issue.
[3] On April 15, 2003, the Minister of National Revenue (the "Minister") informed the Appellant of his decision that her insurable earnings during the periods at issue were $7,071.64 for the period from April 16 to May 1, 2001, and $2,010.85 for the period from October 10 to November 29, 2001.
[4] In making his decision, the Minister relied on the following presumptions of fact:
[TRANSLATION]
(a) During the periods at issue, the Appellant was employed as a flight attendant with the Payor; (admitted)
(b) From August 8, 2000 to January 15, 2001, the Appellant was on leave due to a work-related accident; (admitted)
(c) As of January 16, 2001, the Appellant gradually returned to work; (admitted)
(d) From April 16 to May 1, 2001, the Appellant worked 55 hours for the Payor; (admitted)
(e) For those 55 hours, the Appellant was paid $1,845.23 in two instalments of $1,763.82 and $81.41; (admitted)
(f) In May 2001, the Payor paid the Appellant $5,226.41 in accumulated vacation time; (admitted)
(g) From October 10 to November 29, 2001, the Appellant worked 113 hours for the payer; (admitted)
(h) For those 113 hours, the Appellant was paid $2,010.85, $1,373.07 of which was paid in October and $637.78 in November; (subject to amplification)
[5] At the hearing, the Appellant filed Exhibit A-1 in support of her claim that the remuneration is insurable. The Minister filed Exhibits I-1 to I-6, upon which he relied in determining the Appellant's actual insurable earnings. These include the Appellant's Records of Employment, her Statement of Remuneration Paid (T4) and the statement of amounts paid to the Appellant by Great West Life as a wage-loss replacement plan (T4A).
[6] It was established at the hearing that the Payor had provided differing information to the Minister and to the Appellant regarding the latter's remuneration.
[7] The hearing permitted the parties to compare their information in an attempt to resolve the ambiguity. Once this was done, it was this Court's opinion that it was demonstrated the Appellant's insurable earnings for the periods at issue are as indicated in the T4 submitted to the Appellant. This is Exhibit I-5, and the amount indicated is $10,857.72.
[8] During the hearing, this Court had the opportunity to compare the information presented by each party. Counsel for the Minister stated her position that the amount paid to the Appellant in compensation for lost wages was not insurable earnings. This Court believes it must give effect to this argument, as this matter has never been addressed. The Appellant did not address it and it was not part of the proceedings. As a result, it is not necessary for this Court to rule on the insurability of the amounts paid to the Appellant by Great West Life.
[9] At the Appellant's request, this Court agreed to grant her until April 30, 2004, to produce other documents that she claimed would support her position. However, no additional documents have been submitted to date.
[10] The Appellant had the burden of proving the inaccuracy of the Minister's presumptions. She did not, however, discharge that burden. Furthermore, she admitted to all relevant presumptions by the Minister. As a result, the appropriateness of this Court's intervention has not been demonstrated.
[11] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the Minister's decision is confirmed.
Signed at Grand-Barachois, New Brunswick, this 20th day of May 2004.
|
"S.J. Savoie" |
Savoie D.J.
Translation certified true
on this 3rd day of November 2004.
Gerald Woodard, Translator