Canada Case Law

Ubartas c. M.R.N.

Court

Tax Court of Canada

On the facts the relationship was an employment relationship: the parties intended and treated it as employment; the employer exercised direction and control over work areas, method and scheduling; appellant was integrated in employer operations, attended employer training, received payroll with statutory withholdings and T4s, could not subcontract or hire replacements and was paid a regular advance salary with reconciliations rather than operating a separate business; accordingly appellant occupied insurable employment in 2020 and 2021 and the Minister’s decision was overturned.

Source excerpt

• Insurable employment
• Employee versus independent contractor
• Subordination and control
• Contract interpretation
• Payroll and withholding

Read case analysis

Sharp v. Autorité des marchés financiers

Court

Supreme Court of Canada

The Supreme Court of Canada held that Quebec’s securities scheme applied to out-of-province defendants with a sufficient connection to Quebec, so the FMAT had jurisdiction.

• Extraterritoriality
• Tribunal adjudicative jurisdiction
• Real and substantial connection
• Interpretation of civil code of québec
• Prescriptive vs adjudicative jurisdiction
• Securities-regulation

Read case analysis

Castillo v. Service d'administration P.C.R. Ltée

Court

Federal Court

Federal Court dismissed judicial review of an unjust dismissal remedy decision, finding the adjudicator’s refusal to award most damages reasonable and upholding $2,000 costs.

• Judicial review
• Reasonableness review
• Unjust dismissal remedies
• Severance and income replacement
• Aggravated (moral) damages
• Punitive damages

Read case analysis

Payette v. M.N.R.

Court

Tax Court of Canada

On the totality of the evidence and applying Quebec civil law criteria informed by relevant federal jurisprudence, the court found no relationship of subordination: the appellant worked autonomously (set her own schedule, worked from car/home), bore business expenses and financial risk, had opportunity for profit, could engage assistants, and contractual terms expressly disavowed subordination; regulatory requirements and quality controls did not convert control over result into control over performance. Therefore the agreement was a contract for services and the appellant did not hold insura…

Source excerpt

• Employee versus independent contractor
• Insurable employment
• Contract of service vs contract for services
• Legal subordination (control)

Read case analysis

Syndicat des Copropriétaires le Sommet Entre Ville et Montagnes v. M.N.R.

Court

Tax Court of Canada

On the balance of probabilities the worker was an employee and had insurable employment under s.5(1)(a) of the Employment Insurance Act because the appellant exercised control and subordination over the worker, provided tools and materials, imposed schedule and duties, the worker was integrated into the appellant's business and had no risk of loss or real chance of profit, so the factual performance outweighed the contractual label of a contract for services.

Source excerpt

• Insurable employment
• Employee versus independent contractor
• Contract interpretation
• Control/subordination test

Read case analysis

Gestion M.-A. Roy Inc. v. The King

Court

Tax Court of Canada

Because the appellants were the contractual owners of the insurance policies and did not have to pay the annual premiums (R3D paid them), the appellants received a measurable economic benefit equal to those premiums; that benefit is taxable under s.15(1) (and alternatively under s.246(1) for the related‑party facts concerning 445 Canada), so the reassessments are upheld and the appeals dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Taxable benefit
• Shareholder benefit
• Subsection 15(1) ita
• Subsection 246(1) ita
• Life insurance premiums
• Cash surrender value

Read case analysis

Mazraani v. M.N.R.

Court

Tax Court of Canada

The Court found the Agent Contract evidenced the parties' common intention that the appellant be an independent contractor and the objective reality of the working relationship matched that intention: IA's control was limited to regulatory compliance and monitoring, the appellant provided or rented essential tools, bore prospecting expenses, faced real risk of loss and chance of profit, and retained autonomy over schedule and methods; therefore no contract of service existed and the appellant was not engaged in insurable employment under the EIA.

Source excerpt

• Insurable employment
• Independent contractor vs employee
• Contract of service vs contract for services
• Wiebe door factors
• Regulatory compliance in financial services

Read case analysis

Bigeagle v. Canada

Court

Federal Court

The certification motion was dismissed because the Statement of Claim is overbroad and fails to plead material facts necessary to support any of the alleged causes of action; there is no pleaded private duty of care or fiduciary relationship giving rise to systemic negligence or negligent investigation claims, Charter claims by relatives/community members are not sufficiently personal or pleaded, misfeasance and international crimes are not particularized to meet legal elements, and the pleading defects are incurable; thus certification is denied and the claim struck without leave to amend.

Source excerpt

• Systemic negligence
• Negligent police investigation
• Misfeasance in public office
• Fiduciary duty
• Charter ss.7 and 15
• Admissibility of inquiry reports

Read case analysis

Fiducie Historia v. The Queen

Court

Tax Court of Canada

The motion under Rule 58 is dismissed because the proposed questions centrally depend on disputed material facts—notably the purpose, object and intent of the November 15, 2013 agreement—which cannot be fairly resolved on a preliminary Rule 58 hearing without witness testimony; resolving those facts would risk duplicative testimony and credibility determinations before two judges, and thus Rule 58 is inappropriate as it would not substantially shorten the hearing or save significant costs.

Source excerpt

• Trustees delegation
• Nullity (relative vs absolute)
• Standing to invoke nullity
• Rule 58 preliminary determination
• Deduction under s.104(6) ita

Read case analysis

9267-2245 Quebec Inc. v. M.N.R.

Court

Tax Court of Canada

The court found on the balance of probabilities that the objective facts demonstrated a relationship of subordination and control (assigned trucks and routes, paid regular wage, no risk of loss, no ownership of tools, integration into business), therefore the drivers were employees and engaged in insurable employment under s.5(1)(a) of the EIA despite parties' subjective characterization as independent contractors.

Source excerpt

• Insurable employment
• Employee versus independent contractor
• Subordination and control
• Contract interpretation under ccq
• Wiebe door/sagaz factors

Read case analysis