Tremblay v. Canada (National Revenue)

Tremblay v. Canada (National Revenue) Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2006-11-30 Neutral citation 2006 FCA 392 File numbers 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 Decision Content Date: 20061130 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 Hearing held at Québec, Quebec, on November 29, 2006. Judgment delivered at Québec, Quebec, on November 30, 2006. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT Date: 20061130 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” J.A. “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 PLACE OF HEARING: Québec DATE OF HEARING: November 29, 2006 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: NADON J.A. CONCURRED IN BY: DESJARDINS and NOËL, JJ.A. DATED: November 30, 2006 APPEARANCES:: Frédéric St-Jean FOR THE APPELLANTS Simon-Nicolas Crépin FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Frédéric St-Jean Sainte-Foy, Quebec FOR THE APPELLANTS Department of Justice Canada Montréal, Quebec FOR THE RESPONDENT