Rockwood v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue)
The Tax Court properly found the Minister's assumption that the applicant's position was an artificial arrangement to obtain maximum benefits was reasonable; the applicant failed to prove the Minister acted improperly or to establish a basis to admit new evidence, therefore the Minister's decision stands and the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2001 FCA 194
- Parties
- Applicant: Brent Rockwood; Respondent: The Minister of National Revenue
- Court
- Federal Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 11 June 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Final Disposition by Federal Court of Appeal After Tax Court Decision
- Outcome
- Application dismissed with costs.
- Legal Topics
- Unemployment Insurance Benefits, Arm's Length Transaction, Employer Employee Relationship, Judicial Review of Administrative Decision, Admissibility of Fresh Evidence
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Brent Rockwood
Applicant
The Minister of National Revenue
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Disposition by Federal Court of Appeal After Tax Court Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Payors and Applicant dealt with each other at arm's length under the Unemployment Insurance Act
- 2 Whether an employer-employee relationship existed between the Applicant and the Payors
- 3 Whether the Minister acted capriciously, arbitrarily, in bad faith or for an improper purpose
Ratio Decidendi
The Tax Court properly found the Minister's assumption that the applicant's position was an artificial arrangement to obtain maximum benefits was reasonable; the applicant failed to prove the Minister acted improperly or to establish a basis to admit new evidence, therefore the Minister's decision stands and the application is dismissed.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed with costs.
Orders
- Application dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Rockwood v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue) Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2001-06-11 Neutral citation 2001 FCA 194 File numbers A-44-00 Decision Content Date: 20010611 Docket: A-44-00 Neutral citation: 2001 FCA 194 CORAM: RICHARD C.J. ROTHSTEIN J.A. SEXTON J.A. BETWEEN: BRENT ROCKWOOD Applicant - and - THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE Respondent Heard at St. John's, Newfoundland on Wednesday, May 30, 2001 Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on Monday, June 11, 2001 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: SEXTON J.A. CONCURRED IN BY: RICHARD C.J. ROTHSTEIN J.A. Date: 20010611 Docket: A-44-00 Neutral citation: 2001 FCA 194 CORAM: RICHARD C.J. ROTHSTEIN J.A. SEXTON J.A. BETWEEN: BRENT ROCKWOOD Applicant - and - THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT SEXTON J.A. [1] The Applicant claimed unemployment insurance benefits in connection with work performed for companies (the Payors) variously owned by his father, sister, mother, brother-in-law and wife or some of them. [2] The applicant was denied benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act because the Minister of National Revenue decided that the Payors and the Applicant were not dealing with each other at arm's length and that there was no employer-employee relationship between them. [3] The Tax Court Judge set out in detail the assumption made by the Minister which showed that the applicant's position with the Payors was an artificial arrangement designed solely to obtain the maximum unemployment insurance benefits. [4] The Tax Court Judge held that the onus was on the Applicant to establish that the Minister acted capriciously or arbitrarily and that the Applicant had failed to discharge this onus. He relied on decisions of the Court being Tignish Auto Parts Inc. v. Minister of National Revenue (1994), 185 N.R. 73 (F.C.A.) and Ferme Emile Richard et Fils v. Minister of National Revenue (1994), 178 N.R. 361 (F.C.A.).. [5] Rather than filing the record of the proceedings before the Tax Court, the Applicant sought to rely on new affidavit evidence which was not before the Tax Court. No proper basis for the introduction of such evidence was made out and hence we will not consider it. [6] In the absence of the record before the Tax Court, we are unable to disagree with the conclusion of the Tax Court Judge. He could only substitute his decision for that of the Minister where it is established that the Minister acted in bad faith or for an improper purpose or failed to take into account all of the relevant circumstances Canada (Attorney General) v. Jencan, [1998] 1 F.C. 187 (C.A.). None of these were established in this case. [7] The application will be dismissed with costs. "J. Edgar Sexton" J.A. "I agree J. Richard C.J." "I agree Marshall Rothstein J.A."