Service Agro Mécanique Inc v. M.N.R.

Service Agro Mécanique Inc v. M.N.R.
Court (s) Database
Tax Court of Canada Judgments
Date
2004-02-10
Neutral citation
2004 TCC 49
File numbers
2000-2453(EI)
Judges and Taxing Officers
François M. Angers
Subjects
Employment Insurance Act
Decision Content
Docket: 2000-2453(EI)
BETWEEN:
SERVICE AGRO MÉCANIQUE INC.,
Appellant,
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent.
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
____________________________________________________________________
Appeal heard on common evidence with the appeals of
Jacques Tremblay (2000-983(EI)), Nadine Leblond (2000-985(EI)),
Benoît Roy (2000-2054(EI)), Sébastien Roy (2000-2055(EI)),
Martine Côté (2000-2057(EI)), Valère Jalbert (2000-2059(EI)),
Guy Rousseau (2000-2060(EI)), Stéphane Aubut (2000-2061(EI)),
Stéphane April (2000-2063(EI)), Alex Fournier (2000-2062(EI)),
Rémi Tremblay (2000-2064(EI)), Claude Tremblay (2000-2066(EI)),
Michel Tremblay (2000-2065(EI)), Denis Lévesque (2000-2067(EI))
on September 8, 2003, at Rivière-du-Loup, Quebec.
Present: The Honourable Justice François Angers
Appearances:
Counsel for the Appellants:
Jérôme Carrier
Counsel for the Respondent:
Simon-Nicolas Crépin
____________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
The appeal is dismissed and the determination made by the Minister of National Revenue is confirmed in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 10th day of February 2004.
"François Angers"
Angers J.
Translation certified true
on this 26th day of March 2009.
Brian McCordick, Translator
Docket: 2000-983(EI)
BETWEEN:
JACQUES TREMBLAY,
Appellant,
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent.
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
____________________________________________________________________
Appeal heard on common evidence with the appeals of
Service Agro Mécanique inc. (2000-2453(EI)), Nadine Leblond (2000-985(EI)),
Benoît Roy (2000-2054(EI)), Sébastien Roy (2000-2055(EI)),
Martine Côté (2000-2057(EI)), Valère Jalbert (2000-2059(EI)),
Guy Rousseau (2000-2060(EI)), Stéphane Aubut (2000-2061(EI)),
Stéphane April (2000-2063(EI)), Alex Fournier (2000-2062(EI)),
Rémi Tremblay (2000-2064(EI)), Claude Tremblay (2000-2066(EI)),
Michel Tremblay (2000-2065(EI)), Denis Lévesque (2000-2067(EI))
on September 8, 2003, at Rivière-du-Loup, Quebec.
Present: The Honourable Justice François Angers
Appearances:
Counsel for the Appellants:
Jérôme Carrier
Counsel for the Respondent:
Simon-Nicolas Crépin
____________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
The appeal is dismissed and the determination made by the Minister of National Revenue is confirmed in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 10th day of February 2004.
"François Angers"
Angers J.
Translation certified true
on this 26th day of March 2009.
Brian McCordick, Translator
Docket: 2000-985(EI)
BETWEEN:
NADINE LEBLOND,
Appellant,
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent.
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
____________________________________________________________________
Appeal heard on common evidence with the appeals of
Service Agro Mécanique inc. (2000-2453(EI)),
Jacques Tremblay (2000-983(EI)), Benoît Roy (2000-2054(EI)),
Sébastien Roy (2000-2055(EI)), Martine Côté (2000-2057(EI)),
Valère Jalbert (2000-2059(EI)), Guy Rousseau (2000-2060(EI)),
Stéphane Aubut (2000-2061(EI)), Stéphane April (2000-2063(EI)),
Alex Fournier (2000-2062(EI)), Rémi Tremblay (2000-2064(EI)),
Claude Tremblay (2000-2066(EI)), Michel Tremblay (2000-2065(EI)),
Denis Lévesque (2000-2067(EI))
on September 8, 2003, at Rivière-du-Loup, Quebec.
Present: The Honourable Justice François Angers
Appearances:
Counsel for the Appellants:
Jérôme Carrier
Counsel for the Respondent:
Simon-Nicolas Crépin
____________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
The appeal is dismissed and the determination made by the Minister of National Revenue is confirmed in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 10th day of February 2004.
"François Angers"
Angers J.
Translation certified true
on this 26th day of March 2009.
Brian McCordick, Translator
Docket: 2000-2054(EI)
BETWEEN:
BENOÎT ROY,
Appellant,
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent.
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
____________________________________________________________________
Appeal heard on common evidence with the appeals of
Service Agro Mécanique inc. (2000-2453(EI)),
Jacques Tremblay (2000-983(EI)), Nadine Leblond(2000-985(EI)),
Sébastien Roy (2000-2055(EI)), Martine Côté (2000-2057(EI)),
Valère Jalbert (2000-2059(EI)), Guy Rousseau (2000-2060(EI)),
Stéphane Aubut (2000-2061(EI)), Stéphane April (2000-2063(EI)),
Alex Fournier (2000-2062(EI)), Rémi Tremblay (2000-2064(EI)),
Claude Tremblay (2000-2066(EI)), Michel Tremblay (2000-2065(EI)),
Denis Lévesque (2000-2067(EI))
on September 8, 2003, at Rivière-du-Loup, Quebec.
Present: The Honourable Justice François Angers
Appearances:
Counsel for the Appellants:
Jérôme Carrier
Counsel for the Respondent:
Simon-Nicolas Crépin
____________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
The appeal is dismissed and the determination made by the Minister of National Revenue is confirmed in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 10th day of February 2004.
"François Angers"
Angers J.
Translation certified true
on this 26th day of March 2009.
Brian McCordick, Translator
Docket: 2000-2055(EI)
BETWEEN:
SÉBASTIEN ROY,
Appellant,
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent.
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
____________________________________________________________________
Appeal heard on common evidence with the appeals of
Service Agro Mécanique inc. (2000-2453(EI)),
Jacques Tremblay (2000-983(EI)), Nadine Leblond (2000-985(EI)),
Benoît Roy (2000-2054(EI)), Martine Côté (2000-2057(EI)),
Valère Jalbert (2000-2059(EI)), Guy Rousseau (2000-2060(EI)),
Stéphane Aubut (2000-2061(EI)), Stéphane April (2000-2063(EI)),
Alex Fournier (2000-2062(EI)), Rémi Tremblay (2000-2064(EI)),
Claude Tremblay (2000-2066(EI)), Michel Tremblay (2000-2065(EI)),
Denis Lévesque (2000-2067(EI))
on September 8, 2003, at Rivière-du-Loup, Quebec.
Present: The Honourable Justice François Angers
Appearances:
Counsel for the Appellants:
Jérôme Carrier
Counsel for the Respondent:
Simon-Nicolas Crépin
____________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
The appeal is dismissed and the determination made by the Minister of National Revenue is confirmed in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 10th day of February 2004.
"François Angers"
Angers J.
Translation certified true
on this 26th day of March 2009.
Brian McCordick, Translator
Docket: 2000-2057(EI)
BETWEEN:
MARTINE CÔTÉ,
Appellant,
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent.
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
____________________________________________________________________
Appeal heard on common evidence with the appeals of
Service Agro Mécanique inc. (2000-2453(EI)),
Jacques Tremblay (2000-983(EI)), Nadine Leblond (2000-985(EI)),
Benoît Roy (2000-2054(EI)), Sébastien Roy (2000-2055(EI)),
Valère Jalbert (2000-2059(EI)), Guy Rousseau (2000-2060(EI)),
Stéphane Aubut (2000-2061(EI)), Stéphane April (2000-2063(EI)),
Alex Fournier (2000-2062(EI)), Rémi Tremblay (2000-2064(EI)),
Claude Tremblay (2000-2066(EI)), Michel Tremblay (2000-2065(EI)),
Denis Lévesque (2000-2067(EI))
on September 8, 2003, at Rivière-du-Loup, Quebec.
Present: The Honourable Justice François Angers
Appearances:
Counsel for the Appellants:
Jérôme Carrier
Counsel for the Respondent:
Simon-Nicolas Crépin
____________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
The appeal is dismissed and the determination made by the Minister of National Revenue is confirmed in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 10th day of February 2004.
"François Angers"
Angers J.
Translation certified true
on this 26th day of March 2009.
Brian McCordick, Translator
Docket: 2000-2059(EI)
BETWEEN:
VALÈRE JALBERT,
Appellant,
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent.
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
____________________________________________________________________
Appeal heard on common evidence with the appeals of
Service Agro Mécanique inc. (2000-2453(EI)),
Jacques Tremblay (2000-983(EI)), Nadine Leblond (2000-985(EI)),
Benoît Roy (2000-2054(EI)), Sébastien Roy (2000-2055(EI)),
Martine Côté (2000-2057(EI)), Guy Rousseau (2000-2060(EI)),
Stéphane Aubut (2000-2061(EI)), Stéphane April (2000-2063(EI)),
Alex Fournier (2000-2062(EI)), Rémi Tremblay (2000-2064(EI)),
Claude Tremblay (2000-2066(EI)), Michel Tremblay (2000-2065(EI)),
Denis Lévesque (2000-2067(EI))
on September 8, 2003, at Rivière-du-Loup, Quebec.
Present: The Honourable Justice François Angers
Appearances:
Counsel for the Appellants:
Jérôme Carrier
Counsel for the Respondent:
Simon-Nicolas Crépin
____________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
The appeal is dismissed and the determination made by the Minister of National Revenue is confirmed in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 10th day of February 2004.
"François Angers"
Angers J.
Translation certified true
on this 26th day of March 2009.
Brian McCordick, Translator
Docket: 2000-2060(EI)
BETWEEN:
GUY ROUSSEAU,
Appellant,
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent.
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
____________________________________________________________________
Appeal heard on common evidence with the appeals of
Service Agro Mécanique inc. (2000-2453(EI)),
Jacques Tremblay (2000-983(EI)), Nadine Leblond (2000-985(EI)),
Benoît Roy (2000-2054(EI)), Sébastien Roy (2000-2055(EI)),
Martine Côté (2000-2057(EI)), Valère Jalbert (2000-2059(EI)),
Stéphane Aubut (2000-2061(EI)), Stéphane April (2000-2063(EI)),
Alex Fournier (2000-2062(EI)), Rémi Tremblay (2000-2064(EI)),
Claude Tremblay (2000-2066(EI)), Michel Tremblay (2000-2065(EI)),
Denis Lévesque (2000-2067(EI))
on September 8, 2003, at Rivière-du-Loup, Quebec.
Present: The Honourable Justice François Angers
Appearances:
Counsel for the Appellants:
Jérôme Carrier
Counsel for the Respondent:
Simon-Nicolas Crépin
____________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
The appeal is dismissed and the determination made by the Minister of National Revenue is confirmed in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 10th day of February 2004.
"François Angers"
Angers J.
Translation certified true
on this 26th day of March 2009.
Brian McCordick, Translator
Docket: 2000-2061(EI)
BETWEEN:
STÉPHANE AUBUT,
Appellant,
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent.
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
____________________________________________________________________
Appeal heard on common evidence with the appeals of
Service Agro Mécanique inc. (2000-2453(EI)),
Jacques Tremblay (2000-983(EI)), Nadine Leblond (2000-985(EI)),
Benoît Roy (2000-2054(EI)), Sébastien Roy (2000-2055(EI)),
Martine Côté (2000-2057(EI)), Valère Jalbert (2000-2059(EI)),
Guy Rousseau (2000-2060(EI)), Stéphane April (2000-2063(EI)),
Alex Fournier (2000-2062(EI)), Rémi Tremblay (2000-2064(EI)),
Claude Tremblay (2000-2066(EI)), Michel Tremblay (2000-2065(EI)),
Denis Lévesque (2000-2067(EI))
on September 8, 2003, at Rivière-du-Loup, Quebec.
Present: The Honourable Justice François Angers
Appearances:
Counsel for the Appellants:
Jérôme Carrier
Counsel for the Respondent:
Simon-Nicolas Crépin
____________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
The appeal is dismissed and the determination made by the Minister of National Revenue is confirmed in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 10th day of February 2004.
"François Angers"
Angers J.
Translation certified true
on this 26th day of March 2009.
Brian McCordick, Translator
Docket: 2000-2063(EI)
BETWEEN:
STÉPHANE APRIL,
Appellant,
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent.
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
____________________________________________________________________
Appeal heard on common evidence with the appeals of
Service Agro Mécanique inc. (2000-2453(EI)),
Jacques Tremblay (2000-983(EI)), Nadine Leblond (2000-985(EI)),
Benoît Roy (2000-2054(EI)), Sébastien Roy (2000-2055(EI)),
Martine Côté (2000-2057(EI)), Valère Jalbert (2000-2059(EI)),
Guy Rousseau (2000-2060(EI)), Stéphane Aubut (2000-2061(EI)),
Alex Fournier (2000-2062(EI)), Rémi Tremblay (2000-2064(EI)),
Claude Tremblay (2000-2066(EI)), Michel Tremblay (2000-2065(EI)),
Denis Lévesque (2000-2067(EI))
on September 8, 2003, at Rivière-du-Loup, Quebec.
Present: The Honourable Justice François Angers
Appearances:
Counsel for the Appellants:
Jérôme Carrier
Counsel for the Respondent:
Simon-Nicolas Crépin
____________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
The appeal is dismissed and the determination made by the Minister of National Revenue is confirmed in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 10th day of February 2004.
"François Angers"
Angers J.
Translation certified true
on this 26th day of March 2009.
Brian McCordick, Translator
Docket: 2000-2062(EI)
BETWEEN:
ALEX FOURNIER,
Appellant,
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent.
____________________________________________________________________
Appeal heard on common evidence with the appeals of
Service Agro Mécanique inc. (2000-2453(EI)),
Jacques Tremblay (2000-983(EI)), Nadine Leblond (2000-985(EI)),
Benoît Roy (2000-2054(EI)), Sébastien Roy (2000-2055(EI)),
Martine Côté (2000-2057(EI)), Valère Jalbert (2000-2059(EI)),
Guy Rousseau (2000-2060(EI)), Stéphane Aubut (2000-2061(EI)),
Stéphane April (2000-2063(EI)), Rémi Tremblay (2000-2064(EI)),
Claude Tremblay (2000-2066(EI)), Michel Tremblay (2000-2065(EI)),
Denis Lévesque (2000-2067(EI))
on September 8, 2003, at Rivière-du-Loup, Quebec.
Present: The Honourable Justice François Angers
Appearances:
Counsel for the Appellants:
Jérôme Carrier
Counsel for the Respondent:
Simon-Nicolas Crépin
____________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
The appeal is dismissed and the determination made by the Minister of National Revenue is confirmed in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 10th day of February 2004.
"François Angers"
Angers J.
Translation certified true
on this 26th day of March 2009.
Brian McCordick, Translator
Docket: 2000-2064(EI)
BETWEEN:
RÉMI TREMBLAY,
Appellant,
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent.
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
____________________________________________________________________
Appeal heard on common evidence with the appeals of
Service Agro Mécanique inc. (2000-2453(EI)),
Jacques Tremblay (2000-983(EI)), Nadine Leblond (2000-985(EI)),
Benoît Roy (2000-2054(EI)), Sébastien Roy (2000-2055(EI)),
Martine Côté (2000-2057(EI)), Valère Jalbert (2000-2059(EI)),
Guy Rousseau (2000-2060(EI)), Stéphane Aubut (2000-2061(EI)),
Stéphane April (2000-2063(EI)), Alex Fournier (2000-2062(EI)),
Claude Tremblay (2000-2066(EI)), Michel Tremblay (2000-2065(EI)),
Denis Lévesque (2000-2067(EI))
on September 8, 2003, at Rivière-du-Loup, Quebec.
Present: The Honourable Justice François Angers
Appearances:
Counsel for the Appellants:
Jérôme Carrier
Counsel for the Respondent:
Simon-Nicolas Crépin
____________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
The appeal is dismissed and the determination made by the Minister of National Revenue is confirmed in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 10th day of February 2004.
"François Angers"
Angers J.
Translation certified true
on this 26th day of March 2009.
Brian McCordick, Translator
Docket: 2000-2066(EI)
BETWEEN:
CLAUDE TREMBLAY,
Appellant,
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent.
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
____________________________________________________________________
Appeal heard on common evidence with the appeals of
Service Agro Mécanique inc. (2000-2453(EI)),
Jacques Tremblay (2000-983(EI)), Nadine Leblond (2000-985(EI)),
Benoît Roy (2000-2054(EI)), Sébastien Roy (2000-2055(EI)),
Martine Côté (2000-2057(EI)), Valère Jalbert (2000-2059(EI)),
Guy Rousseau (2000-2060(EI)), Stéphane Aubut (2000-2061(EI)),
Stéphane April (2000-2063(EI)), Alex Fournier (2000-2062(EI)),
Rémi Tremblay (2000-2064(EI)), Michel Tremblay (2000-2065(EI)),
Denis Lévesque (2000-2067(EI))
on September 8, 2003, at Rivière-du-Loup, Quebec.
Present: The Honourable Justice François Angers
Appearances:
Counsel for the Appellants:
Jérôme Carrier
Counsel for the Respondent:
Simon-Nicolas Crépin
____________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
The appeal is dismissed and the determination made by the Minister of National Revenue is confirmed in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 10th day of February 2004.
"François Angers"
Angers J.
Translation certified true
on this 26th day of March 2009.
Brian McCordick, Translator
Docket: 2000-2065(EI)
BETWEEN:
MICHEL TREMBLAY,
Appellant,
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent.
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
____________________________________________________________________
Appeal heard on common evidence with the appeals of
Service Agro Mécanique inc. (2000-2453(EI)),
Jacques Tremblay (2000-983(EI)), Nadine Leblond (2000-985(EI)),
Benoît Roy (2000-2054(EI)), Sébastien Roy (2000-2055(EI)),
Martine Côté (2000-2057(EI)), Valère Jalbert (2000-2059(EI)),
Guy Rousseau (2000-2060(EI)), Stéphane Aubut (2000-2061(EI)),
Stéphane April (2000-2063(EI)), Alex Fournier (2000-2062(EI)),
Rémi Tremblay (2000-2064(EI)), Claude Tremblay (2000-2066(EI)),
Denis Lévesque (2000-2067(EI))
on September 8, 2003, at Rivière-du-Loup, Quebec.
Present: The Honourable Justice François Angers
Appearances:
Counsel for the Appellants:
Jérôme Carrier
Counsel for the Respondent:
Simon-Nicolas Crépin
____________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
The appeal is dismissed and the determination made by the Minister of National Revenue is confirmed in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 10th day of February 2004.
"François Angers"
Angers J.
Translation certified true
on this 26th day of March 2009.
Brian McCordick, Translator
Docket: 2000-2067(EI)
BETWEEN:
DENIS LÉVESQUE,
Appellant,
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent.
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
____________________________________________________________________
Appeal heard on common evidence with the appeals of
Service Agro Mécanique inc. (2000-2453(EI)),
Jacques Tremblay (2000-983(EI)), Nadine Leblond (2000-985(EI)),
Benoît Roy (2000-2054(EI)), Sébastien Roy (2000-2055(EI)),
Martine Côté (2000-2057(EI)), Valère Jalbert (2000-2059(EI)),
Guy Rousseau (2000-2060(EI)), Stéphane Aubut (2000-2061(EI)),
Stéphane April (2000-2063(EI)), Alex Fournier (2000-2062(EI)),
Rémi Tremblay (2000-2064(EI)), Claude Tremblay (2000-2066(EI)),
Michel Tremblay (2000-2065(EI))
on September 8, 2003, at Rivière-du-Loup, Quebec.
Present: The Honourable Justice François Angers
Appearances:
Counsel for the Appellants:
Jérôme Carrier
Counsel for the Respondent:
Simon-Nicolas Crépin
____________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
The appeal is dismissed and the determination made by the Minister of National Revenue is confirmed in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 10th day of February 2004.
"François Angers"
Angers J.
Translation certified true
on this 26th day of March 2009.
Brian McCordick, Translator
Citation: 2004TCC49
Date: 20040210
Dockets: 2000-2453(EI), 2000-983(EI),
2000-985(EI), 2000-2054(EI), 2000-2055(EI),
2000-2057(EI), 2000-2059(EI), 2000-2060(EI),
2000-2061(EI), 2000-2063(EI), 2000-2062(EI),
2000-2064(EI), 2000-2066(EI), 2000-2065(EI), 2000-2067(EI)
BETWEEN:
SERVICES AGRO MÉCANIQUE INC.,
JACQUES TREMBLAY, NADINE LEBLOND,
BENOÎT ROY, SÉBASTIEN ROY,
MARTINE CÔTÉ, VALÈRE JALBERT,
GUY ROUSSEAU, STÉPHANE AUBUT,
STÉPHANE APRIL, ALEX FOURNIER,
RÉMI TREMBLAY, CLAUDE TREMBLAY,
MICHEL TREMBLAY, DENIS LÉVESQUE,
Appellants,
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent.
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Angers J.
[1] These appeals involve 14 workers employed by the Appellant, Service Agro Mécanique Inc. (S.A.M.). Five of them are appealing from a determination by the Minister of National Revenue (the Minister) dated February 7, 2000, that their employment was not insurable on the ground that they would not have entered into a substantially similar contract of employment if they had been dealing with each other at arm's length, within the meaning of the Unemployment Insurance Act (UIA) or the Employment Insurance Act (EIA), as the case may be. The appellant workers affected by this decision are the Appellants Claude Tremblay, Jacques Tremblay, Michel Tremblay, Rémi Tremblay and Nadine Leblond. The other nine appellant workers are appealing from a decision made by the Minister on the same date determining their insurable weeks, insurable hours and insurable earnings for the purposes of the UIA or the EIA, as the case may be, during their respective periods of employment in issue in this case, while they were working for S.A.M.
[2] For the purposes of the trial, therefore, the Appellants have been divided into two groups: one for which the issue was the non-arm's length relationship, and the other for which the issue was the period of insurable employment. The appeals were heard on common evidence.
[3] S.A.M. was incorporated on April 12, 1976. It operates a business selling and maintaining farm equipment at two locations: one in St‑Clément, Quebec, and the other in St‑Pascal. Quebec. The business operates year-round, but the peak period is between April and December. Depending on the period in issue, the shareholders were Gaétan Tremblay, now deceased, his wife Monique Roy and their sons Pierre, Claude, Rémi and Jacques Tremblay. It is admitted that the parties were not dealing with each other at arm's length in the five cases in which that is the issue. I will therefore deal with those five cases first.
Claude Tremblay
[4] Claude Tremblay was employed by the payor as a salesperson during the periods in issue, from May 9, 1993, to November 4, 1995, and from November 5, 1995 to December 31, 1996. In his letter dated February 7, 2000, the Minister determined that this Appellant's employment during those periods, while he was working for S.A.M., was not insurable within the meaning of the UIA and the EIA on the ground that the Appellant and S.A.M. would not have entered into a substantially similar contract if they had been dealing with each other at arm's length. In making his determination, the Minister relied on the following assumptions of fact, which were admitted or denied as indicated below. Subparagraphs (a) through (e) of paragraph 5 were admitted; they represent facts already set out in these Reasons and are therefore not reproduced here.
[TRANSLATION]
(f) On May 10, 1993, the payor issued a record of employment to the Appellant showing that the first day of work was April 13, 1992, and the last day was May 7, 1993. (admitted)
(g) The record of employment was allegedly issued because of a shortage of work, but the Appellant continued to perform services for the payor. (denied)
(h) On May 10, 1993, the Appellant applied for and received employment insurance benefits. (admitted)
(i) On November 3, 1995, the payor issued a second record of employment to the Appellant showing that the first day of work was July 19, 1993, and the last day was November 3, 1995. (admitted)
(j) The payor issued that record of employment allegedly to enable the Appellant to take parental leave, but he did not stop working. (denied)
(k) On November 6, 1995, the Appellant applied for and received parental benefits. (admitted)
(l) The periods of employment shown on the Appellant's two records of employment do not correspond to the actual periods of employment. (denied)
(m) The Appellant and the payor entered into an arrangement so that the Appellant could obtain benefits to which he was not entitled and the payor could have a salesperson year-round at little expense. (denied)
[5] During the periods in issue, Claude Tremblay was a salesperson selling cowshed and dairy farm equipment. He has worked for S.A.M. since 1980. During the periods in issue, his office was in St‑Clément. He received a salary of $500 per week for a 44-hour week. His work consisted in soliciting customers, finding new customers, travelling and organizing demonstrations on site or on a producer's premises. He testified that during the periods when he was unemployed his brother Pierre worked at S.A.M. as a salesperson. However, he admitted that when a customer called during those periods, a message was taken and he called the customer back himself. According to Mr. Tremblay, the customers trusted the salesperson who had solicited them and he looked after his customers himself.
[6] On May 7, 1993, his father decided to terminate his employment. The record of employment shows that there was a shortage of work. The witness admitted that he went back to S.A.M. after he was laid off. He testified that he went back to stay in touch with his employer. He went in to solve problems, even though that was not arranged, and also to close sales. He explained that this did not take much of his time because the preliminary work had already been completed. He was not paid for that work.
[7] The Appellant Claude Tremblay lives a few doors away from his employer and did not work at the St‑Pascal branch during the periods in issue.
[8] Contradicting Claude Tremblay's testimony that his father had decided to lay him off, the minutes of a meeting of the S.A.M. board of directors (Exhibit I‑1) dated May 6, 1993, show that this was a decision of the board of directors. Item 2 in the minutes reads as follows:
[TRANSLATION] Claude will receive his record of employment for May 10 and Jacques will receive his at the end of the summer.
[9] The minutes of a second meeting of the S.A.M. board of directors dated June 14, 1993 (Exhibit I‑2), again at item 2, read as follows:
[TRANSLATION] Claude is still in a period of unemployment; Jacques will be unemployed at the end of the summer.
[10] It is admitted by S.A.M. that it pleaded guilty on May 25, 2000, to 29 counts of issuing false records of employment to a large majority of the Appellants, contrary to the UIA and the EIA. One of the counts referred to the second record of employment issued to the Appellant Claude Tremblay and related, in particular, to the date of the first day of work, July 19, 1993. The Appellant is aware of this fact but did not admit the error.
[11] Claude Tremblay's employee identification number at S.A.M. is 6. The Respondent introduced two notebooks containing a number of invoices on which the Appellant's number is shown and the dates fall within his two periods of unemployment. Other invoices issued during the same periods bear the Appellant's initials. Although the last day of work stated on his first record of employment was May 7, 1993, there is an invoice dated May 10, 1993, showing his number, and he admits that the customer called him on that date and he went to run an errand for S.A.M. in Rivière-du-Loup. He was not paid for that. There are similar documents for the second period of employment. At the end of cross-examination, the Appellant admitted that he performed some services in 1993, 1994 and 1995, during his periods of unemployment, without being paid, and that his availability cards did not show that he had worked. In fact, in his statement, he admitted that when he was receiving benefits in 1993 and 1995, he carried on his activities for S.A.M., but at a slower pace. He called this part-time work, since he was no longer prospecting. The Appellant had a vehicle year-round and had his travel expenses reimbursed during his periods of part-time work.
[12] The Respondent called Bruno Arguin, an appeals officer at the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency since 1994. His work consists in examining determinations made by the Department of Human Resources Development regarding the insurability of employment. In this case, he declared the employment of the Appellant Claude Tremblay to be not insurable because he was not dealing with the employer at arm's length. He prepared a table (Exhibit I‑6) showing the periods of unemployment of the Appellant Claude Tremblay and showing, for each day of the week during those periods, the number of documents that bore either the Appellant's employee number or his initials. For example, for May 10, 1994, there are four documents attributable to the Appellant, which are found in Exhibits I‑4 and I‑5. Certain documents clearly show that Claude Tremblay was present, since there are hours of work allocated to him in the documents. The table also shows the amounts he was paid, based on the payroll book. The table shows documents attributable to the Appellant for nearly every day during his periods of unemployment.
[13] Mr. Arguin said that from this exercise he was able to conclude that the Appellant was present on the employer's premises nearly every day, and that based on the number of documents found and the employer's written statements, a lot of work was done on a volunteer basis. In addition, the Appellant Claude Tremblay had the use of a motor vehicle year-round, and a credit card for gasoline, and Mr. Arguin relied on this to conclude that the employment had never really ceased to exist and that services were still performed during the periods of unemployment. The guilty plea entered by S.A.M. was not considered by Mr. Arguin, because the plea was entered after February 7, 2000, the date on which the Minister's determination was made. This in fact applies to all of the cases. On the question of the extent of the work done by the Appellant at S.A.M., Mr. Arguin was of the opinion that the role of salesperson involves numerous responsibilities, since the salespeople are the ones who generate income for the company, and so a salesperson is a key person at S.A.M.
Michel Tremblay
[14] The periods covered by Michel Tremblay's appeal are July 5 to November 26, 1993, June 6 to September 16, 1994, May 1 to September 29, 1995, May 6 to September 20, 1996, and May 12 to October 17, 1997. In his letter dated February 7, 2000, the Minister determined that the employment of the Appellant Michel Tremblay during those periods was not insurable within the meaning of the UIA and the EIA on the ground that the Appellant and S.A.M. would not have entered into a substantially similar contract if they had been dealing with each other at arm's length. In making his determination, the Minister relied on the following assumptions of fact, which were admitted or denied as indicated below. The facts already set out in these Reasons are not repeated here.
[TRANSLATION]
(g) On November 26, 1993, the payor issued a record of employment to the Appellant showing that the first day of work was July 5, 1993, and the last day was November 26, 1993. (admitted)
(h) The record of employment was allegedly issued because of a shortage of work, but the Appellant continued to perform services for the payor. (denied)
(i) On May 3, 1994, the Appellant applied for and received unemployment insurance benefits. (admitted)
(j) On September 19, 1994, the payor issued a second record of employment to the Appellant showing that the first day of work was June 6, 1994, and the last day was September 16, 1994. (admitted)
(k) The record of employment was allegedly issued because of a shortage of work, but the Appellant continued to perform services for the payor. (denied)
(l) On or about September 16, 1994, the Appellant applied for and received unemployment insurance benefits. (admitted)
(m) On October 3, 1995, the payor issued a third record of employment to the Appellant showing that the first day of work was May 1, 1995, and the last day was September 29, 1995. (admitted)
(n) The record of employment was allegedly issued because of a shortage of work, but the Appellant continued to perform services for the payor. (denied)
(o) On October 4, 1995, the Appellant applied for and received unemployment insurance benefits. (admitted)
(p) On September 20, 1996, the payor issued a fourth record of employment to the Appellant showing that the first day of work was May 6, 1996, and the last day was September 20, 1996. (admitted)
(q) The record of employment was allegedly issued because of a shortage of work, but the Appellant continued to perform services for the payor. (denied)
(r) On September 23, 1996, the Appellant applied for and received employment insurance benefits. (admitted)
(s) On October 17, 1997, the payor issued a fifth record of employment to the Appellant showing that the first day of work was May 12, 1997, and the last day was October 17, 1997. (admitted)
(t) The record of employment was allegedly issued because of a shortage of work, but the Appellant continued to perform services for the payor. (denied)
(u) On October 20, 1997, the Appellant applied for and received employment insurance benefits. (admitted)
(v) The periods of employment shown on the Appellant's five records of employment do not correspond to the actual periods of employment. (denied)
(w) The Appellant and the payor entered into an arrangement so that the Appellant could obtain benefits to which he was not entitled and the payor could have a salesperson year-round at little expense. (denied)
[15] The Appellant Michel Tremblay was employed by S.A.M. as a farm machinery salesperson. He held shares in S.A.M. until 1993. He continued to be employed by S.A.M. although from 1993 to 1999 he operated a snow removal business. He lives in St-Clément and his home is a three-minute walk from S.A.M.'s place of business. According to the documents submitted, the Appellant was unemployed during periods from the end of October or November to May of the following year, and sometimes from the end of September until early June, depending on the claim.
[16] During the first period in issue, the Appellant worked 40 to 45 hours a week. He met with the sales manager, his brother Pierre Tremblay, every morning, to plan his day. He was laid off on November 26, 1993, as his father and his brother Pierre had agreed. He admitted that during his period of unemployment he met with customers he had solicited during the summer. He said that because he knew he could earn income amounting to 25 percent of his weekly benefits without that income being deducted from his benefits, he reported the income he earned during that period. He added that he continued to perform services for S.A.M. and to see his brother Pierre at S.A.M. during his periods of unemployment.
[17] When the Appellant Michel Tremblay worked, he reported it on his unemployment cards. The same scenario was played out during 1995, 1996 and 1997, for approximately the same periods.
[18] The Appellant's salary at S.A.M. was based on total sales the previous year, that is, overall performance for the year, which therefore included sales made outside the period of employment.
[19] The records of employment (Exhibit I‑7) show that the reason for the termination of employment was a shortage of work. The Appellant stated that in his case there was a significant reduction in the work, in that 85 percent of his sales were made in the spring and fall.
[20] According to a table prepared by Mr. Arguin (Exhibit I‑10) and the corresponding documents (Exhibit I‑8), the Appellant made sales which are attributed to him because of his initials or signature on purchase orders or invoices prepared outside the periods of employment in all of the periods in issue. The Appellant said that he was aware of the investigation by Human Resources Development Canada and the charges laid against S.A.M., including four relating to his periods of employment, but said he did not know the details of all that.
[21] In his statutory declaration, the Appellant Michel Tremblay said that starting when he paid himself a weekly salary from his own business he longer recorded the hours he worked for S.A.M., because in any event his business was paying him. He later added that he worked an average of zero to five hours per week for S.A.M. in the winter.
[22] In relation to this appeal, Bruno Arguin produced a table similar to the one prepared in the case of Claude Tremblay. He referred to documents prepared outside the periods of employment, for all the periods in issue, on which there was an indication that they were attributable to the Appellant, and he reproduced all of the monthly sales by the Appellant and the S.A.M. payroll book. As an example, Mr. Arguin noted an S.A.M. sale made on December 1, 1993, and attributed to the Appellant, when the record of employment shows that his employment with S.A.M. ended on November 26, 1993. The tale also shows that according to the payroll book, the Appellant was paid $204.80 on December 4, 1993, and received no salary for the following weeks. However, for the week of December 12, there were eight sales or contracts with indications that they were attributable to him. The Appellant made $68,552 in sales in April 1994 but received no salary, according to the payroll book. Mr. Arguin concluded that the Appellant continued to perform services for S.A.M. after his employment terminated without being paid. He considered the services performed by the Appellant to be significant, since they were performed at S.A.M.'s place of business, and so the employment relationship between the Appellant and S.A.M. was never really terminated.
Rémi Tremblay
[23] The periods covered by this appeal are March 21, 1993, to February 28, 1998, and March 1 to December 31, 1998. In his letter dated February 7, 2000, the Minister determined that the employment of the Appellant Rémi Tremblay during those periods was not insurable within the meaning of the UIA and the EIA on the ground that the Appellant and S.A.M. would not have entered into a substantially similar contract if they had been dealing with each other at arm's length. In making his determination, the Minister relied on the following assumptions of fact, which were admitted or denied as indicated below. The facts already set out in these Reasons are not repeated here.
[TRANSLATION]
(f) On March 22, 1993, the payor issued a record of employment to the Appellant showing that the first day of work was July 8, 1991, and the last day was March 19, 1993. (admitted)
(g) The record of employment was allegedly issued because of a shortage of work, but the Appellant continued to perform services for the payor. (denied)
(h) On March 23, 1993, the Appellant applied for and received employment insurance benefits. (admitted)
(i) On March 2, 1998, the payor issued a second record of employment to the Appellant showing that the first day of work was June 7, 1993, and the last day was February 27, 1998. (admitted)
(j) The payor issued that record of employment allegedly to enable the Appellant to take parental leave, but he did not stop working for the payor. (denied)
(k) On March 3, 1998, the Appellant applied for and received parental benefits. (admitted)
(l) The periods of employment shown on the Appellant's two records of employment do not correspond to the actual periods of employment. (denied)
(m) The Appellant and the payor entered into an arrangement so that the Appella