Thornbrook Complete Home Care Inc. v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue)
The appeal is allowed because the Tax Court judge overlooked evidence that some individuals had other clients and possibly carried on business on their own account; because that omitted evidence could have affected the employment classification, the matter must be remitted to the Tax Court for redetermination on...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2005 FCA 22
- Parties
- Appellant: Thornbrook Complete Home Care Inc.; Respondent: The Minister of National Revenue
- Court
- Federal Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 18 January 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Tax Appeal (employee Vs Independent Contractor Classification) / Decision on Appeal; Matter Remitted to Tax Court for Redetermination
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; remitted to the Tax Court for redetermination.
- Legal Topics
- Employee Versus Independent Contractor, Carrying on Business, Evidentiary Omission, Remittal
- 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
Thornbrook Complete Home Care Inc.
Appellant
The Minister of National Revenue
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Tax Appeal (employee Vs Independent Contractor Classification) / Decision on Appeal; Matter Remitted to Tax Court for Redetermination
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the individuals were employees or independent contractors
- 2 Whether the individuals were carrying on business on their own account
- 3 Whether the Tax Court judge failed to consider evidence that individuals had other clients
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal is allowed because the Tax Court judge overlooked evidence that some individuals had other clients and possibly carried on business on their own account; because that omitted evidence could have affected the employment classification, the matter must be remitted to the Tax Court for redetermination on appropriate evidence.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; remitted to the Tax Court for redetermination.
Orders
- Appeal allowed.
- Matter remitted to the Tax Court for redetermination on the basis of appropriate evidence.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Thornbrook Complete Home Care Inc. v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue) Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2005-01-18 Neutral citation 2005 FCA 22 File numbers A-164-04 Decision Content Date: 20050118 Docket: A-164-04 Citation: 2005 FCA 22 CORAM: ROTHSTEIN J.A. NOËL J.A. MALONE J.A. BETWEEN: THORNBROOK COMPLETE HOME CARE INC. Appellant and THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE Respondent Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on January 18th, 2005. Judgment delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on January 18th, 2005. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: ROTHSTEIN J.A. Date: 20050118 Docket: A-164-04 Citation: 2005 FCA 22 CORAM: ROTHSTEIN J.A. PELLETIER J.A. MALONE J.A. BETWEEN: THORNBROOK COMPLETE HOME CARE INC. Appellant and THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on January 18, 2005) ROTHSTEIN J.A. [1] In this employment versus independent contractor appeal from the Tax Court, a significant issue is whether the individuals were carrying on business on their own account when the matter was considered from their perspective. See for example 671122 Ontario Ltd. v. Sagaz Industries Canada Inc., [2001] 2 S.C.R. 983, at paragraph 43. [2] The learned Tax Court judge stated at paragraph 21 of his reasons: A business will ordinarily have two or more customers or clients but, in these appeals, the clients are very clearly the clients of Thornbrook. This conclusion, along, with his other findings, caused him to determine that the individuals were employees. [3] However, while general in nature, there was evidence in the record from the individuals that they had other customers than Thornbrook Complete Home Care Inc. at the relevant time. In the case of one individual, she appeared to be operating under a business name, Zimani 97. [4] While the reasons of the judge are thorough and well laid out, we can find no reference to this evidence. On the contrary, the statement of the judge quoted above appears to suggest that the individuals had no other clients or customers than Thornbrook. [5] Because there were considerations pointing in both directions, that is, of an employment or independent contractor relationship, we cannot be certain, had this evidence been taken into account, what conclusion the judge would have reached. [6] We must therefore allow the appeal and remit the matter to the Tax Court for redetermination on the basis of appropriate evidence. "Marshall Rothstein" J.A. FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-164-04 STYLE OF CAUSE: THORNBROOK COMPLETE HOME CARE INC. Appellant and THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE Respondent PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO DATE OF HEARING: JANUARY 18, 2005 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: (ROTHSTEIN, NOËL and MALONE, JJ.A.) DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: ROTHSTEIN J.A. APPEARANCES: Mr. Cosimo Fiorenza Ms. Natasha Miklaucic FOR THE APPELLANT Ms. Donna Dorosh FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Goodman & Carr Barristers & Solicitors Toronto, Ontario FOR THE APPELLANT John H. Sims, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada FOR THE RESPONDENT