Edmonds v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue)

Edmonds v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue)

The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the application, holding that the Tax Court Judge did not err in finding the lumpers were employees under s.6(g) because the evidence and the Minister's assumptions supported that they were placed in employment under the supervision of the shippers and were paid by the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2002 FCA 256
Parties
Applicant: Mae Edmonds, o/a A-1 Lumpers; Respondent: The Minister of National Revenue
Court
Federal Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 June 2002
Procedural Posture
Employment Insurance Appeal (tax Court Decision Under Review) / Federal Court of Appeal Appeal; Reasons for Order Delivered
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Employment Status, Insurable Employment, Agency Placement, Employment Insurance Regulations S.6(g)
Source Language
en
Employment Law Administrative Law Tax Law Social Security/employment Insurance Employment Status Insurable Employment Agency Placement Employment Insurance Regulations S.6(g)

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mae Edmonds, o/a A-1 Lumpers

Applicant

The Minister of National Revenue

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Insurance Appeal (tax Court Decision Under Review) / Federal Court of Appeal Appeal; Reasons for Order Delivered

  1. 1 Whether the lumpers were employees within the meaning of s.6(g) of the Employment Insurance Regulations and whether the Tax Court Judge erred in so holding

Ratio Decidendi

The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the application, holding that the Tax Court Judge did not err in finding the lumpers were employees under s.6(g) because the evidence and the Minister's assumptions supported that they were placed in employment under the supervision of the shippers and were paid by the applicant/agency.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs