BETWEEN:
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
____________________________________________________________________
Application heard on August 31, 2005, at Toronto, Ontario
Before: The Honourable Justice Michael J. Bonner
Appearances:
|
|
|
____________________________________________________________________
ORDER
Upon application for an Order dismissing the appeal;
Upon reading the affidavit of Michel Lalande;
And upon hearing what was alleged by the parties;
The motion is granted and the appeal is dismissed.
Signed at Toronto, Ontario, this 2nd day of September 2005.
BETWEEN:
JOE NOVIELLI,
Appellant,
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR ORDER
Bonner, J.
[1] This is an application by the Respondent for an order dismissing the Appellant's appeal.
[2] The grounds as set out in the Notice of Motion are:
(a) At the time that the Appellant filed his Notice of Appeal with the Court, the Respondent had not determined or decided a question, prescribed in section 91 of the Employment Insurance Act (the "Act");
(b) There is no decision on an appeal and therefore no basis to file an appeal pursuant to section 103 of the Act.
[3] The body of the Notice of Appeal is brief. It reads:
Reason for the Appeal
I believe, that I am eligible for EI premium refund for the period of from 1989 to 2004 - since it was year 1989 when I started a dispute that I am not eligible for employment insurance and that I should not have to pay employment insurance premium. I do not agree with the decision that I will received [sic] a refund for just 4 years since non-eligibility for the employment insurance existed for past 15 years and it was the period of last 15 yrs I was trying to be released from paying such premium however, I was still forced to pay.
[4] This document was interpreted as an attempt to appeal to this Court under section 103(1) of the Employment Insurance Act (the "Act") from a decision on appeal to the Minister of National Revenue (the Minister) under section 91 of the Act.
[5] Section 91 of the Act provides for an appeal to the Minister from a ruling made pursuant to a request under section 90 on the question whether an employment is insurable.
[6] Under the relevant legislation an appeal to this Court may only be brought by a person affected by a decision on appeal to the Minister under section 91.
[7] The affidavit of Michel Lalande filed by the Minister establishes that a section 90 ruling was made to the effect that the Appellant's employment for the years 2000 to 2003 was not insurable. That ruling was apparently satisfactory to the Appellant and it resulted in a refund of premiums.
[8] The Appellant's complaint relates to the years 1989 to 2000 and 2004. The affidavit of Mr. Lalande establishes that no decision was ever made on appeal to the Minister under section 91 of the Act nor was a determination made under section 61 of the Unemployment Insurance Act with respect to any of those years.
[9] The Appellant declined to give evidence with a view to establishing that, contrary to the Lalande affidavit, an appealable Ministerial decision or determination had ever been made.
[10]The Appellant indicated that he wanted to secure copies of employment insurance records pertaining to his status under the Act. I offered to grant him an adjournment to permit him to obtain such files. He declined the offer and instead indulged in a pointless rant about the treatment which he believed he deserved under laws which, so far as I can tell, have never been enacted. Mr. Novielli's unsworn assertion that in 1989 he called some unknown government official and advised that official that his employment was not insurable is not a ground for dismissing this motion.
[11]In the absence of a ministerial decision appealable to this Court, I must allow the motion and dismiss the appeal.
Signed at Toronto, Ontario, this 2nd day of September 2005.
Michael J. Bonner
Bonner, J.
STYLE OF CAUSE: Joe Novielli and M.N.R.
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: August 31, 2005
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: The Honourable Justice Michael J. Bonner
DATE OF ORDER: September 2, 2005
APPEARANCES:
|
For the Appellant: |
The Appellant himself
|
|
Counsel for the Respondent: |
Stacey Sloan |
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
Firm:
For the Respondent: John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario