Lacroix v. M.N.R.

Lacroix v. M.N.R. Court (s) Database Tax Court of Canada Judgments Date 2004-11-26 Neutral citation 2004 TCC 743 File numbers 2004-1221(EI) Judges and Taxing Officers Georgette Anne Sheridan Subjects Employment Insurance Act Decision Content Citation: 2004TCC743 Date: 20041126 Docket: 2004-1221(EI) BETWEEN: JOSEPHINE LACROIX, Appellant, and THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE, Respondent. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (Delivered orally from the bench at St. Catharines, Ontario on September 30, 2004. Sheridan, J. [1] The Appellant, Josephine Lacroix, is appealing from the decision of the Minister of National Revenue under the Employment Insurance Act. Her claim for benefits was denied on the basis that she was not at arm's length from her employer and it was reasonable for the Minister to conclude that Ms. Lacroix and her employer would not have entered a "substantially similar" contract of employment if they had been dealing with each other at arm's length"[1]. [2] Ms. Lacroix's husband, Daniel Lacroix, acted as her agent at the hearing. Both he and Ms. Lacroix testified. I found them to be credible witnesses, both knowledgeable and forthcoming in the presentation of their evidence. Ms. Lacroix was cross-examined by counsel for the Respondent. She described her duties at the flooring business. It was a small business requiring all workers to pitch in and do whatever was needed to make the enterprise a success. From her testimony, it was clear that this was Ms. Lacroix's approach to her work; there was nothing to suggest her duties were more or less onerous than those of her arm's length co-workers. During the period under appeal, her husband held 50 per cent of the shares. After an unhappy breakdown in the business relationship, however, Mr. Lacroix sold his shares to his partner in the business. Ms. Lacroix was "let go" by the new management. [3] Upon the conclusion of her evidence and after hearing Mr. Lacroix's direct evidence, counsel for the Respondent submitted to the Court that this was a case where the appeal ought to be allowed. Being satisfied on the basis of the evidence heard that it was not reasonable for the Minister to have reached the conclusion he did, and in light of the Respondent's position, I am allowing the appeal and the Minister's decision is vacated. Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 26th day of November 2004. "G. Sheridan" ________________________________ Sheridan, J. CITATION: 2000TCC743 COURT FILE NO.: 2004-1221(EI) STYLE OF CAUSE: Josephine Lacroix and H.M.Q. PLACE OF HEARING: St. Catharines, Ontario DATE OF HEARING: September 30, 2004 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: The Honourable Justice G. Sheridan DATE OF JUDGMENT: November 6, 2004 APPEARANCES: Agent for the Appellant: Daniel Lacroix Counsel for the Respondent: John R. Shipley COUNSEL OF RECORD: For the Appellant: Name: Firm: For the Respondent: Morris Rosenberg Deputy Attorney General of Canada Ottawa, Canada [1] Paragraph 5(3)(b) of the Employment Insurance Act.