Marathon Electric Ltd. v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue)
The Tax Court correctly applied the Sagaz multi-factor test and reasonably concluded the workers were employees for EI and CPP purposes; the Federal Court of Appeal found no reviewable error and dismissed the appeal, upholding the assessments.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2004 FCA 355
- Parties
- Appellant/applicant: Marathon Electric Ltd.; Respondent: Minister of National Revenue
- Court
- Federal Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 20 October 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal From Tax Court of Canada / Appeal Heard and Judgment Delivered by Federal Court of Appeal
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- Employee Vs Independent Contractor, Insurable Employment, Pensionable Employment, Application of Sagaz Test, Parties' Intention in Contractual Labelling
- 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
Marathon Electric Ltd.
Appellant/applicant
Minister of National Revenue
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Tax Court of Canada / Appeal Heard and Judgment Delivered by Federal Court of Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the named workers were employees for purposes of the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Pension Plan
- 2 Whether the Tax Court judge misapplied the Sagaz/671122 Ontario Ltd. test
- 3 Whether the parties' expressed intentions controlled the characterization of the relationship
Ratio Decidendi
The Tax Court correctly applied the Sagaz multi-factor test and reasonably concluded the workers were employees for EI and CPP purposes; the Federal Court of Appeal found no reviewable error and dismissed the appeal, upholding the assessments.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed with costs
Orders
- Appeal dismissed with costs
- Assessments upheld
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Marathon Electric Ltd. v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue) Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2004-10-20 Neutral citation 2004 FCA 355 File numbers A-28-04 Decision Content Date: 20041020 Docket: A-28-04 Citation: 2004 FCA 355 CORAM: NOËL J.A. EVANS J.A. PELLETIER J.A. BETWEEN: MARATHON ELECTRIC LTD. Appellant/Applicant and MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE Respondent Heard at Vancouver, British Columbia on October 20, 2004. Judgment delivered from the Bench at Vancouver, British Columbia on October 20, 2004. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: EVANS J.A. Date: 20041020 Docket: A-28-04 Citation: 2004 FCA 355 CORAM: NOËL J.A. EVANS J.A. PELLETIER J.A. BETWEEN: MARATHON ELECTRIC LTD. Appellant/Applicant and MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the Bench at Vancouver, British Columbia on October 20, 2004) EVANS J. A. [1] This is an appeal from a decision of the Tax Court of Canada holding that certain named workers of Marathon Electric Ltd. were employed in insurable and pensionable employment for the purposes of the Employment Insurance Act, S.C. 1996, c. 23 and the Canada Pension Plan, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-8: Marathon Electric Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue, 2003 TCC 714. The Judge dismissed Marathon's appeal and confirmed the assessments issued to it by the Minister in respect of the premiums owing under the Act and the Plan. [2] Despite the valiant efforts of counsel for the appellant, we are not satisfied that the Tax Court Judge committed reviewable error in his application of the legal tests established in 671122 Ontario Ltd. v. Sagaz Industries Canada Inc., [2001] 2 S.C.R. 983, for determining whether a person is engaged as an independent contractor or as an employee for EI and CPP purposes. Counsel did not persuade us that, on the basis of the evidence before him, the Judge's conclusion was unreasonable. [3] Nor do we agree that the Judge erred in his appreciation of the relevant legal tests to be applied. In response to the argument that the Judge failed to give sufficient weight to the parties' intention respecting their contracts, we would note that in Wolf v. Canada, [2002] 4 F.C. 396 at para. 124, Noël J.A. observed: "This is not a case where the parties labelled their relationship in a certain way with a view to achieving a tax benefit." [4] For these reasons, the appeal will be dismissed with costs. (Sgd.) "John Maxwell Evans" J.A. FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-28-04 STYLE OF CAUSE: Marathon Electric Ltd. V Minister of National Revenue PLACE OF HEARING: Vancouver, B.C. DATE OF HEARING: October 20, 2004 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT: NOEL, EVANS, PELLETIER, JJ A REASONS READ FROM THE BENCH BY: EVANS J.A. APPEARANCES: Mr. Craig McTavish FOR THE APPELLANT Ms. Kristy Foreman Gear FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Kahn Zack Ehrlich Lithwick FOR THE APPELLANT Richmond BC Mr. Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT Deputy Attorney General for Canada