Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Tax Court found Mr. Dennis De Ramos was an employee, not an independent contractor, for night shifts caring for James Burns, and dismissed the appeals.
The Tax Court allowed two appeals, finding the appellant’s work was pensionable and insurable employment because he honestly believed his work permit renewal was being handled.
Applying the Connor Homes two‑step framework and weighing Sagaz/Wiebe Door factors, the Court found on the evidence and intention (including letter agreements) that Suresh and Titus were independent contractors (not in insurable or pensionable employment). Selvy controlled more than 40% of voting shares and therefore her employment was not insurable (but was pensionable); Sheela and Akhill were employees (insurable and pensionable). The Court gave limited weight to CRA officers' cut‑and‑paste reports and preferred witness testimony where inconsistent.
Source excerpt
The court found the Appellant and Intervenor were not dealing at arm's length: owner-employees acted in concert in setting remuneration and dividends, the Unanimous Shareholder Agreement and Fred/Fredco's retained powers undermined arm's-length bargaining, and specific terms (highly variable remuneration tied to reciprocal owner interests, employee participation on employer side of bargaining, automatic termination upon ceasing share ownership) meant the employment terms were not substantially similar to those arm's length parties would have agreed; accordingly the Intervenor was not in insur…
Source excerpt
The appeal is dismissed because the claimant failed to demonstrate good cause for the entire period of delay (March 28, 2023 to May 16, 2023); she knew her trip would affect benefits but did not check her bank statements for seven weeks and her stated confusion over statements and personal distress do not meet the reasonable‑person good cause standard under s.10(5).
Source excerpt
The Appellant was a placement agency because it placed engineers with RCM for a fee and did not provide services beyond supplying personnel; the engineers were employees of RCM because objective factors (RCM's control and supervision, fixed hours, provision of tools and software, inability to hire replacements, lack of profit opportunity and absence of investment or managerial role) establish a relationship analogous to an employer-employee contract, therefore the Minister's assessments requiring the Appellant to remit CPP contributions and EI premiums for 2018 are upheld.
Source excerpt
The court concluded that despite contractual labels declaring independent contractor status, the objective facts (substantial control and supervision by IBI, provision of premises and equipment, scheduling and replacement practices, hourly remuneration with no independent business risk or opportunity) overwhelmingly supported characterization of Ms. Delorme as an employee, so the Minister's decision was upheld.
Source excerpt
Because employment insurance appeals follow a quasi-informal procedure intended to facilitate access and fairness, and unrepresented appellants generally have difficulty with written motions, the court declined to decide the motion to quash in writing and ordered an oral hearing; the motion is to be set down for hearing at the first available sitting in Vancouver.
Source excerpt
Each appellant exercised effective control over the voting shares (despite legal title of seven shares to their daughter) such that each controlled more than 40% of Midway's voting shares and therefore their employment was excluded under s.5(2)(b) of the Employment Insurance Act; alternatively, as related parties they would not have entered into substantially similar employment contracts at arm's length, so s.5(2)(i) also excluded insurable employment.
Source excerpt
The Commission validly reopened the claims within the 72-month window on the basis it reasonably believed false or misleading statements were made, it exercised its discretion judicially to investigate and issue warnings (monetary penalties were time-barred), and because the Commission proved funds from the fraudulent claims were deposited into the Appellant's bank account the Appellant is legally liable to repay the overpaid EI benefits.
Source excerpt
Explore more
