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 held that Chelsea Lees was an employee, not an independent contractor, of SXNM Successionmatching Ltd. for EI and CPP purposes.
The appellant did not meet the statutory eligibility threshold of 600 hours of insurable employment within the qualifying period (June 2, 2024 to May 31, 2025), having only 360 hours; therefore she is not entitled to EI maternity benefits and the Tribunal cannot disregard or modify the statutory requirements.
Source excerpt
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.
The CRA ruling established the Appellant worked 819 insurable hours during the qualifying period and, because that number is binding and is less than the 1050 hours required given the 5.7% regional unemployment rate, the Appellant does not meet the statutory qualifying hours for EI and the appeal is dismissed.
Source excerpt
The appellant failed to prove she had no reasonable alternative to quitting: her permanent position was insurable employment despite low hours, she could have maintained that employment while seeking other work, and there was no evidence she had formed an intention to return to school at the time of quitting; therefore she was disqualified from EI benefits for voluntarily leaving without just cause.
Source excerpt
Judicial review dismissed. The Federal Court held the SST Appeal Division reasonably refused leave to appeal because the Canada-Ireland agreement did not govern EI benefits and the Irish work was not insurable.
Because the CRA ruled the appellant’s employment was not insurable under s.5(2)(b), the appellant’s self-employment earnings are the amount that would have been insurable earnings under s.152.01(2)(b); the T4 and notice of assessment showing $56,847.45 establish that amount and exceed the $8,492 threshold, so the appellant qualifies for self-employment special benefits.
Source excerpt
Permission to appeal was refused because the claimant failed to demonstrate an arguable reviewable error: the General Division considered the relevant evidence, reasonably concluded the claimant voluntarily left or abandoned employment despite on‑call status and had reasonable alternatives, and thus the appeal had no reasonable chance of success.
Source excerpt
Because the company and Ms. Positano were related and the evidence demonstrated a discretionary, inconsistent employment arrangement (variable and unexplained ROE amounts, irregular layoffs and rehiring, inconsistent vacation patterns, and credibility failures), it was reasonable to conclude they would not have entered into a substantially similar contract at arm's length; therefore the employment was not insurable and the Minister's decision was upheld.
Source excerpt
Explore more
