Drosdovech v. Canada (National Revenue)
The Court dismissed the appeal because sections 94 of the Employment Insurance Act and 27.3 of the Canada Pension Plan provide a complete answer to the Minister's authority to make determinations, and the Tax Court's factual finding that the appellant employed an individual under a contract of service was supported...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2009 FCA 55
- Parties
- Appellant: Moira-Eileen Drosdovech; Respondent: The Minister of National Revenue
- Court
- Federal Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 25 February 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal From Tax Court to Federal Court of Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- Insurability, Pensionability, Ministerial Powers, Statutory Interpretation, Employment Versus Independent Contractor
- 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
Moira-Eileen Drosdovech
Appellant
The Minister of National Revenue
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Tax Court to Federal Court of Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether subsection 90(1) of the Employment Insurance Act and subsection 26.1(1) of the Canada Pension Plan empower the Minister to initiate and make rulings on insurability and pensionability on his own initiative
- 2 Whether sections 94 of the Employment Insurance Act and 27.3 of the Canada Pension Plan provide a complete answer to the Minister's authority
- 3 Whether the worker was engaged under a contract of service (employee) or a contract for services (independent contractor)
Ratio Decidendi
The Court dismissed the appeal because sections 94 of the Employment Insurance Act and 27.3 of the Canada Pension Plan provide a complete answer to the Minister's authority to make determinations, and the Tax Court's factual finding that the appellant employed an individual under a contract of service was supported by cogent evidence.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed with costs
Orders
- Appeal dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Drosdovech v. Canada (National Revenue) Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2009-02-25 Neutral citation 2009 FCA 55 File numbers A-202-08 Decision Content Date: 20090225 Docket: A-202-08 Citation: 2009 FCA 55 CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A. LÉTOURNEAU J.A. TRUDEL J.A. BETWEEN: MOIRA-EILEEN DROSDOVECH Appellant and THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE Respondent Heard at Vancouver, British Columbia, on February 24, 2009. Judgment delivered at Vancouver, British Columbia, on February 25, 2009. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: TRUDEL J.A. CONCURRED IN BY: DESJARDINS J.A. LÉTOURNEAU J.A. Date: 20090225 Docket: A-202-08 Citation: 2009 FCA 55 CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A. LÉTOURNEAU J.A. TRUDEL J.A. BETWEEN: MOIRA-EILEEN DROSDOVECH Appellant and THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT TRUDEL J.A. [1] The appellant argues that neither subsection 90(1) of the Employment Insurance Act, S.C. 1996, c. 23, nor subsection 26.1(1) of the Canada Pension Plan, R.C.S. 1985, c. C-8 empower the Minister of National Revenue to initiate the process and to make a ruling, on his own initiative, regarding the insurability and pensionability of one’s employment. [2] I am of the view that the Tax Court Judge (Judge) committed no error in law when stating that section 94 of the Employment Insurance Act and section 27.3 of the Canada Pension Plan are a complete answer to the point at issue. [3] Similarly, and although the appellant did not renew at the hearing her written arguments on the merits of the Minister’s decision to maintain, in part, the rulings of the authorized officer, I am of the view that the Judge committed no palpable and overriding error when upholding the Minister’s decision and finding that the appellant was paying remuneration to one employee whose services were retained by contract of service rather than by contract for services, as argued by the appellant. There was cogent evidence for the Judge’s finding. [4] Therefore, I would dismiss the appeal with costs. "Johanne Trudel" J.A. "I concur Alice Desjardins J.A." "I concur Gilles Létourneau J.A." FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-202-08 STYLE OF CAUSE: Moira-Eileen Drosdovech v. MNR PLACE OF HEARING: Vancouver, British Columbia DATE OF HEARING: February 24, 2009 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: TRUDEL J.A. CONCURRED IN BY: DESJARDINS J.A. LÉTOURNEAU J.A. DATED: February 25, 2009 APPEARANCES: Moira-Eileen Drosdovech ON HER OWN BEHALF Christa Akey Michael Taylor FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: John H. Sims, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada FOR THE RESPONDENT