Godin v. M.N.R.

Godin v. M.N.R.
Court (s) Database
Tax Court of Canada Judgments
Date
2016-04-15
Neutral citation
2016 TCC 88
File numbers
2013-1220(EI), 2013-1271(EI), 2013-1994(EI), 2013-1996(CPP), 2013-1998(EI), 2013-2361(EI), 2013-3079(EI), 2013-3080(CPP)
Judges and Taxing Officers
Réal Favreau
Subjects
Employment Insurance Act
Decision Content
Docket: 2013-1998(EI)
BETWEEN:
LAYNE O. GODIN
O/A GODIN’S SEA PRODUCTS,
Appellant,
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent,
and
CHRISTINE CARRIER,
Intervenor.
Appeal heard on common evidence with the appeals of Lucien Carrier 2013-2361(EI), Jacques Doucet 2013-3079(EI), 2013-3080(CPP), Steven Esliger 2013-1271(EI), Kelly Godin 2013-1220(EI) and Wayde Godin 2013-1994(EI), 2013-1996(CPP) on May 12, 13 and 14, 2015 at Miramichi, New Brunswick.
Before: The Honourable Justice Réal Favreau
Appearances:
For the Appellant:
The Appellant himself
Counsel for the Respondent:
Catherine M.G. McIntyre
For the Intervenor:
The Intervenor herself
JUDGMENT
The appeal from the Minister of National Revenue’s decision dated March 22, 2013 regarding the pensionability and insurability of 38 workers’ employment with Layne O. Godin o/a Godin’s Sea Products, based on paragraph 6(1)(a) of the Canada Pension Plan and paragraphs 5(1)(a) and 5(2)(i) of the Employment Insurance Act, is dismissed in accordance with the attached reasons for judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 15th day of April 2016.
“Réal Favreau”
Favreau J.
Docket: 2013-2361(EI)
BETWEEN:
LUCIEN CARRIER,
Appellant,
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent.
Appeal heard on common evidence with the appeals of Layne O. Godin o/a Godin’s Sea Products 2013-1998(EI), Jacques Doucet 2013‑3079(EI), 2013-3080(CPP), Steven Esliger 2013-1271(EI), Kelly Godin 2013-1220(EI) and Wayde Godin 2013-1994(EI), 2013‑1996(CPP) on May 12, 13 and 14, 2015 at Miramichi, New Brunswick.
Before: The Honourable Justice Réal Favreau
Appearances:
For the Appellant:
The Appellant himself
Counsel for the Respondent:
Catherine M.G. McIntyre
JUDGMENT
The appeal from the Minister of National Revenue’s decision dated March 22, 2013 regarding the insurability of the appellant’s employment with Layne O. Godin o/a Godin’s Sea Products, based on paragraph 5(1)(a) of the Employment Insurance Act, section 9.1 of the Employment Insurance Regulations and section 2 of the Insurable Earnings and Collection of Premiums Regulations, is dismissed in accordance with the attached reasons for judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 15th day of April 2016.
“Réal Favreau”
Favreau J.
Dockets: 2013-3079(EI),
2013-3080(CPP)
BETWEEN:
JACQUES DOUCET,
Appellant,
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent,
Appeal heard on common evidence with the appeals of Layne O. Godin o/a Godin’s Sea Products 2013-1998(EI), Lucien Carrier 2013‑2361(EI), Steven Esliger 2013-1271(EI), Kelly Godin 2013‑1220(EI) and Wayde Godin 2013-1994(EI), 2013-1996(CPP) on May 12, 13 and 14, 2015 at Miramichi, New Brunswick.
Before: The Honourable Justice Réal Favreau
Appearances:
For the Appellant:
The Appellant himself
Counsel for the Respondent:
Catherine M.G. McIntyre
JUDGMENT
The appeal from the Minister of National Revenue’s decision dated March 22, 2013 regarding the pensionability and insurability of the appellant’s employment with Layne O. Godin o/a Godin’s Sea Products, based on paragraph 6(1)(a) of the Canada Pension Plan and paragraphs 5(1)(a) and 5(2)(i) of the Employment Insurance Act, is dismissed in accordance with the attached reasons for judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 15th day of April 2016.
“Réal Favreau”
Favreau J.
Docket: 2013-1271(EI)
BETWEEN:
STEVEN ESLIGER,
Appellant,
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent.
Appeal heard on common evidence with the appeals of Layne O. Godin o/a Godin’s Sea Products 2013-1998(EI), Jacques Doucet 2013‑3079(EI), 2013‑3080(CPP), Lucien Carrier 2013-2361(EI), Kelly Godin 2013-1220(EI) and Wayde Godin 2013-1994(EI), 2013-1996(CPP) on May 12, 13 and 14, 2015 at Miramichi, New Brunswick.
Before: The Honourable Justice Réal Favreau
Appearances:
For the Appellant:
The Appellant himself
Counsel for the Respondent:
Catherine M.G. McIntyre
JUDGMENT
The appeal from the Minister of National Revenue’s decision dated March 22, 2013 regarding the insurability of the appellant’s employment with Layne O. Godin o/a Godin’s Sea Products, based on paragraph 5(1)(a) of the Employment Insurance Act, section 9.1 of the Employment Insurance Regulations and subsection 2(1) of the Insurable Earnings and Collection of Premiums Regulations and section 9.1 of the Employment Insurance Regulations, is dismissed in accordance with the attached reasons for judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 15th day of April 2016.
“Réal Favreau”
Favreau J.
Docket: 2013-1220(EI)
BETWEEN:
KELLY GODIN,
Appellant,
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent.
Appeal heard on common evidence with the appeals of Layne O. Godin o/a Godin’s Sea Products 2013-1998(EI), Jacques Doucet 2013‑3079(EI), 2013‑3080(CPP), Lucien Carrier 2013-2361(EI), Steven Esliger 2013-1271(EI) and Wayde Godin 2013-1994(EI), 2013-1996(CPP) on May 12, 13 and 14, 2015 at Miramichi, New Brunswick.
Before: The Honourable Justice Réal Favreau
Appearances:
For the Appellant:
The Appellant himself
Counsel for the Respondent:
Catherine M.G. McIntyre
JUDGMENT
The appeal from the Minister of National Revenue’s decision dated March 22, 2013 regarding the insurability of the appellant’s employment with Layne O. Godin o/a Godin’s Sea Products, based on paragraphs 5(1)(a) and 5)(2)(i) of the Employment Insurance Act, is dismissed in accordance with the attached reasons for judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 15th day of April 2016.
“Réal Favreau”
Favreau J.
Dockets: 2013-1994(EI),
2013-1996(CPP)
BETWEEN:
WAYDE GODIN,
Appellant,
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent.
Appeal heard on common evidence with the appeals of Layne O. Godin o/a Godin’s Sea Products 2013-1998(EI), Jacques Doucet 2013‑3079(EI), 2013-3080(CPP), Steven Esliger 2013-1271(EI), Kelly Godin 2013-1220(EI) and Lucien Carrier 2013-2361(EI) on May 12, 13 and 14, 2015 at Miramichi, New Brunswick.
Before: The Honourable Justice Réal Favreau
Appearances:
For the Appellant:
The Appellant himself
Counsel for the Respondent:
Catherine M.G. McIntyre
JUDGMENT
The appeal from the Minister of National Revenue’s decision dated March 22, 2013 regarding the pensionability and insurability of the appellant’s employment with Layne O. Godin o/a Godin’s Sea Products, based on paragraph 6(1)(a) of the Canada Pension Plan and paragraphs 5(1)(a) and 5(2)(i) of the Employment Insurance Act, is dismissed in accordance with the attached reasons for judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 15th day of April 2016.
“Réal Favreau”
Favreau J.
Citation: 2016 TCC88
Date: 20160415
Dockets: 2013-1998(EI), 2013-2361(EI),
2013-3079(EI), 2013-3080(CPP),
2013-1271(EI), 2013-1220(EI),
2013-1994(EI), 2013-1996(CPP)
BETWEEN:
LAYNE O. GODIN O/A GODIN’S SEA PRODUCTS,
LUCIEN CARRIER, JACQUES DOUCET, STEVEN ESLIGER,
KELLY GODIN, WAYDE GODIN,
Appellants,
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent,
and
CHRISTINE CARRIER,
Intervenor.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Favreau J.
[1] Mr. Layne O. Godin, on his own behalf and on behalf of Godin’s Sea Products, and his workers are appealing the Minister of National Revenue’s 41 rulings dated March 28, 2011 in which the following was determined:
(a) 21 of the workers were not engaged in insurable employment with the Appellant within the meaning of paragraph 5(1)(a) of the Employment Insurance Act (the “Act”) during their respective periods of employment;
(b) three of the workers were not fishers pursuant to sections 1 and 2 of the Employment Insurance Fishing Regulations (the “Fishing Regs”); and
(c) 17 of the workers were engaged in insurable employment with the Appellant but their insurable hours and insurable earnings for their respective periods of employment were re-determined pursuant to section 9.1 of the Employment Insurance Regulations (the “EIR”) and subsection 2(1) of the Insurable Earnings and Collection of Premiums Regulations (the “IECPR”)
[2] As set out in paragraph 5 of the Reply to the Notice of Appeal, Mr. Layne O. Godin was advised by ministerial notification dated March 22, 2013, as follows:
(a) The 20 workers listed in the attached Schedule “A” were not engaged in insurable employment with the Appellant within the meaning of paragraph 5(1)(a) of the Act since the requirements of a contract of service were not met during their respective periods of employment;
(b) In the alternative, that if the 20 workers listed in Schedule “A” were engaged pursuant to a contract of service with the Appellant within the meaning of paragraph 5(1)(a) of the Act, their employment was excluded employment pursuant to paragraph 5(2)(i) of the Act;
(c) 14 workers were engaged in insurable employment with the Appellant within the meaning of paragraph 5(1)(a) of the Act and the Respondent determined their insurable hours and earnings pursuant to section 9.1 or subsection 10(3) of the EIR and subsection 2(1) of the IECPR as set out in the attached Schedule “B”;
(d) With respect to the workers listed in the attached Schedule “C” the respondent determined the following:
(1) Rachel Dalley was not a Fisher within the meaning of section 1 of the Fishing Regs during the period from September 14, 2009 to October 3, 2009 and she was therefore not included as an insured person pursuant to section 2 of the Fishing Regs;
(2) Nicholas Esliger was engaged in insurable employment with the Appellant within the meaning of paragraph 5(1)(a) of the Act during the period from Apr [sic] 22, 2007 to July 14, 2007 and the Respondent determined his insurable hours and earnings pursuant to subsection 10(3) of the EIR and subsection 2(1) of the IECPR as set out in Schedule “C”;
(3) Futhermore, Nicholas Esliger was a Fisher within the meaning of section 1 of the Fishing Regs during the periods from September 22, 2008 to October 3, 2008 and from May 11, 2009 to May 22, 2009 and he was therefore included as an insured person pursuant to section 2 of the Fishing Regs and this decision is not at issue in this appeal;
(4) Joshua Godin was not a Fisher within the meaning of section 1 of the Fishing Regs during the period from May 13, 2007 to July 7, 2007 and he was therefore not included as an insured person pursuant to section 2 of the Fishing Regs;
(5) Rocky Hickey was employed with the Appellant pursuant to a contract of service within the meaning of paragraph 5(1)(a) of the Act for the periods from August 5, 2007 to September 29, 2007 and from August 4, 2008 to October 4, 2008 but his employment for these periods was excluded employment since he and the Appellant were not dealing with each other at arm’s length within the meaning of paragraph 5(2)(i) of the Act;
(6) Furthermore, Rocky Hickey was not engaged in insurable employment with the Appellant within the meaning of paragraph 5(1)(a) of the Act during the period from August 2, 2009 to October 3, 2009 since the requirements of a contract of service were not met;
(7) Patrick Levesque was engaged in insurable employment with the Appellant within the meaning of paragraph 5(1)(a) of the Act during the period from April 26, 2009 to July 4, 2009 and the Respondent determined his insurable hours and earnings pursuant to subsection 10(3) of the EIR and subsection 2(1) of the IECPR as set out in Schedule “C”;
(8) Furthermore, Patrick Levesque was not engaged in insurable employment with the Appellant within the meaning of paragraph 5(1)(a) of the Act during the period from August 2, 2009 to August 15, 2009 since the requirements of a contract of service were not met;
(9) Rudi Mallaley was engaged in insurable employment with the Appellant within the meaning of paragraph 5(1)(a) of the Act for the period from April 26, 2009 to July 4, 2009 since the requirements of a contract of service were met and the Respondent determined her insurable hours and earnings pursuant to subsection 10(3) of the EIR and subsection 2(1) of the IECPR as set out in Schedule “C”;
(10) Furthermore, Rudi Mallaley was not engaged in insurable employment with the Appellant during the period from July 5, 2009 to July 18, 2009 since the requirements of a contract of service within the meaning of paragraph 5(1)(a) of the Act were not met; and
(e) Margaret Ann Labillois was a Fisher within the meaning of section 1 of the Fishing Regs; she was included as an insured person pursuant to section 2 of the Fishing Regs and this decision is not at issue in this appeal.
[3] Mr. Layne O. Godin appealed to this Court with respect to 38 of the workers; the two workers who are not at issue in this appeal are Margaret Ann Labillois and Cody Bernard.
[4] In making his decisions, the Minister relied on the following assumptions of fact, as set out in paragraph 7 of the Reply to the Notice of Appeal:
(a) The Appellant is a sole proprietorship operating as Godin’s Seas Products;
(b) The Appellant’s business is run from his home located in Lorne, Northern New Brunswick;
(c) The nature of the Appellant’s business operations includes fishing and forestry;
(d) The Appellant paid his workers in cash;
The forestry operations:
(e) The Department of Natural Resources requires that cutting permits be obtained when cutting wood on private land;
(f) The Department of Natural Resources in New Brunswick did not issue any cutting permits to the Appellant for any of the alleged periods of employment of Travis Carrier, Kelly Godin, Clayton Hickey and Gail Lavigne (the “Forestry workers”);
(g) Eel River Band First Nation did not hire the Appellant’s services to cut or haul wood or do any forestry work on their land during 2007, 2008 and 2009;
(h) Debbie Loubert did not hire the Appellant’s services to cut wood on her personal property during 2007, 2008 and 2009;
(i) The Appellant did not sell wood to sawmills during 2007, 2008 and 2009;
(j) The Appellant did not earn revenue from the forestry operations during 2007, 2008 and 2009;
(k) The Appellant did not operate in the area of forestry during 2007, 2008 and 2009;
The fishing operations:
(l) The Appellant’s fishing operations consisted of lobster fishing as well as buying and reselling a variety of fish and seafood such as lobster, rock crab, herring and bait;
(m) In Northern New Brunswick, the fishing seasons are as follows:
(1) Herring: from mid-April to mid-May as well as in the fall;
(2) Lobster: from May 1st to June 30th (“lobster season”);
(3) Rock crab: from August 5th to October 15th or until fishermen reach their quota of 77,000 pounds per license (“crab season”);
Lobster season:
(n) The Appellant fished lobster exclusively out of Jacquet River wharf;
(o) During lobster season, there was no lobster landing at Jacquet River wharf on 12 days during 2007, 20 days during 2008; and 10 days during 2009;
(p) The Appellant owned a boat named “#4”;
(q) During 2007, 2008 and 2009 fishing seasons, #4 docked at Jacquet River wharf or Pointe-Verte wharf;
(r) On May 11, 2009 #4 was towed by the Canadian Coast Guard and stayed at Pointe Verte wharf for seven days;
Crab season:
(s) During crab season, the Appellant purchased crab from fishermen landed at Dalhousie or New Mills wharfs and sold it to L’Association Co-op des Pêcheurs de l’Ile Ltée in Lamèque, New Brunswick (the “Lamèque Co‑op”);
(t) During crab season the Appellant also purchased bait from Lamèque Co‑op and sold it to the fishermen at the wharfs;
(u) The Lamèque Co-op is a fish processing facility based in Lamèque, New Brunswick, 2.5 hours away from New Mills wharf;
(v) There was no crab landing at Jacquet River during 2007, 2008, and 2009;
(w) During crab season, the Appellant allegedly employed between four and 15 workers;
(x) The workers made trips to Lamèque Co-op as set out in Schedule “D” , attached, which forms part of this reply;
(y) Not all of the Appellant’s crab workers work every day;
(z) During crab season, August is the Appellant’s busiest month, with a decrease in September and a further decrease in October as the fishermen reach their quotas;
(aa) Off-loading crab takes 30 to 60 minutes on average;
(bb) Crates of crab weigh roughly 100 pounds each;
(cc) During the 2009 crab season, the latest landing of crab at the New Mills wharf occurred at approximately 4pm;
(dd) There was no worker at the Appellant’s house at 5 pm, when Lucien Carrier, the Appellant’s driver, was picking up the crab to be delivered to Lamèque Co-op;
The workers in Schedule “A”
(ee) The workers in Schedule “A” did not perform any services for the Appellant;
(ff) The Appellant did not remunerate any of the workers listed in Schedule “A”;
(gg) The Appellant’s business activities did not require the engagement of the workers listed in Schedule “A”;
(hh) The terms and conditions of employment of the workers in Schedule “A” consisted of an artificial arrangement to ensure their eligibility for employment insurance benefits;
(ii) The assumptions of fact with respect to Kevin Bernard are as follows:
(1) Kevin Bernard has known the Appellant for many years;
(2) Kevin Bernard worked 320 hours while employed with other payers and required 420 hours to qualify for employment insurance benefits;
(3) The Appellant issued Kevin Bernard a Record of Employment for the period from August 10, 2009 to August 22, 2009;
(4) Kevin Bernard did not wash and stack crates at the Appellant’s home during the period from August 10, 2009 to August 22, 2009;
(5) Five other workers performed labor duties at the Appellant’s home during the period from August 10, 2009 to August 22, 2009;
(6) Kevin Bernard would not have worked alone at the Appellant’s house;
(7) The Appellant’s business activities did not increase during the period from August 10, 2009 to August 22, 2009;
(8) Kevin Bernard did not work for the Appellant during the period from August 10, 2009 to August 22, 2009;
(jj) The assumptions of fact with respect to Christine Carrier are as follows:
(1) Christine Carrier has known the Appellant all her life;
(2) The Appellant issued a Record of Employment to Christine Carrier for the period from August 3, 2009 to September 12, 2009;
(3) Christine Carrier did not clean the Appellant’s truck, did not wash crates or help fix lobster and crab traps; she did not clean the Appellant’s house during the period from August 3, 2009 to September 12, 2009;
(4) Eight other workers performed labor duties at the Appellant’s home during the period from August 3, 2009 to September 12, 2009;
(5) The Appellant’s business activities did not increase during the period from August 3, 2009 to September 12, 2009;
(6) Christine Carrier would not have worked alone at the Appellant’s home;
(7) Christine Carrier did not work for the Appellant during the period from August 3, 2009 to September 12, 2009;
(kk) The assumptions of fact with respect to Debra Carrier are as follows:
(1) Debra Carrier has known the Appellant all of her life;
(2) The Appellant issued a Record of Employment to Debra Carrier for the period of September 17, 2007 to October 5 2007;
(3) Debra Carrier did not clean freezers, wash trucks, cut the lawn or do housework for the Appellant during the period from September 17, 2007 to October 5, 2007;
(4) Debra Carrier did not pick up scallops or crab at Jacquet River wharf during the period from September 17, 2007 to October 5, 2007;
(5) Scallops were purchased and sold by the Appellant from July 2 to July 26, 2007 only;
(6) There was no crab landing at Jacquet River wharf during 2007, 2008 and 2009;
(7) Debra Carrier did not get paid by cheques issued by the Appellant;
(8) Seven other workers performed labor duties at the Appellant’s home during the period from September 17, 2007 to October 5, 2007;
(9) Debra Carrier did not work for the Appellant 12 hours a day, Monday to Friday during the period from September 17, 2007 to October 5, 2007;
(10) The Appellant’s business activities did not increase during the period from September 17, 2007 to October 5, 2007;
(11) Debra Carrier did not work for the Appellant during the period from September 17, 2007 to October 5, 2007;
(ll) The assumptions of fact with respect to Michael Louis Carrier are as follows:
(1) Michael Louis Carrier has known the Appellant for 25 years;
(2) The Appellant issued a Record of Employment to Michael Louis Carrier for the period from July 29, 2007 to October 6, 2007;
(3) Michael Louis Carrier did not off-load crab from five or seven boats at the Dalhousie wharf during the period from July 29, 2007 to October 6, 2007;
(4) Only one fisher landed crab at the Dalhousie wharf in 2007;
(5) Michael Louis Carrier did not get paid by cheque issued by the Appellant;
(6) Michael Louis Carrier did not work for the Appellant 12 hours a day, seven days a week for the period fro July 29, 2007 to October 6, 2007;
(7) Ten other workers performed labor duties for the Appellant during the period from July 29, 2007 to October 6, 2007;
(8) Michael Louis Carrier did not work for the Appellant during the period from July 29, 2007 to October 6, 2007;
(mm) The assumptions of fact with respect to Travis Carrier, Kelly Godin, Clayton Hickey and Gail Lavigne (the “forestry workers”) are as follows:
(1) Kelly Godin is a relative of the Appellant;
(2) The Appellant issued Records of Employment to each of the forestry workers for the periods as per Schedule “A”;
(3) The forestry workers did not cut wood or operate a skidder for the Appellant during their respective periods as per Schedule “A”;
(4) The Appellant’s business operation did not include forestry during 2007, 2008 and 2009;
(5) The forestry workers did not work for the Appellant during their respective periods as per Schedule “A”;
(nn) The assumptions of fact with respect to Jacques Doucet are as follows:
(1) The Appellant issued Records of Employment to Jacques Doucet for the periods from April 15, 2007 to July 7, 2007, from April 14, 2008 to July 5, 2008 and from April 19, 2009 to July 11, 2009;
(2) Jacques Doucet did not drive to Jacquet River, Petit Rocher or New Mills wharfs to try to buy lobster from fishermen on the Appellant’s behalf during the lobster season of 2007, 2008 and 2009;
(3) Jacques Doucet did not build traps or work on the Appellant’s boat before the lobster season started;
(4) Jacques Doucet did not work for the Appellant an average of 12 hours a day, seven days a week for 12 weeks from mid-April to early July of 2007, 2008 and 2009;
(5) Jacques Doucet operated his own business, which consisted of purchasing and selling lobster, clams and fiddleheads to the public and employed four to five workers during the lobster season;
(6) Jacques Doucet operated a lobster shop;
(7) Jacques Doucet’s business was a competition of the Appellant’s business;
(8) Jacques Doucet did not generate any additional business for the Appellant;
(9) Jacques Doucet did not work for the Appellant during the periods from April 15, 2007 to July 7, 2007, from April 14, 2008 to July 5, 2008 and from April 19, 2009 to July 11, 2009;
(oo) The assumptions of fact with respect to Kevin Doucet are as follows:
(1) The Appellant issued a Record of Employment to Kevin Doucet for the period from April 19, 2009 to May 30, 2009;
(2) Kevin Doucet did not clean crates, do general labor, fix traps, transport them to the beach or load crates of bait during the period from April 19, 2009 to May 30, 2009;
(3) Kevin Doucet did not work at the Appellant’s shop;
(4) Kevin Doucet would not have worked alone;
(5) Fiver other workers performed labor duties during the period from April 19, 2009 to May 30, 2009;
(6) Kevin Doucet was laid off on May 30, 2009, one month prior to the end of the lobster season;
(7) Kevin Doucet was not laid off due to shortage of work;
(8) Kevin Doucet did not work an average of 12 hours a day, seven days a week for six weeks and for a total of 504 hours;
(9) Kevin Doucet did not work for the Appellant during the period from April 19, 2009 to May 30, 2009;
(pp) The assumptions of fact with respect to Ida-Lynn Godin are as follows:
(1) Ida-Lynn Godin is the Appellant’s sister;
(2) Ida-Lynn Godin did not work as a scaler/driver for the Appellant during the period from May 3, 2009 to July 18, 2009;
(3) Ida-Lynn Godin did not run errands, pick up lobster or deliver bait to the Jaquet River wharf, she did not clean crates or trucks;
(4) Ida-Lynn Godin did not work 12 hours a day, seven days a week for 11 weeks doing errands for the Appellant;
(5) The Appellant issued a Record of Employment to Ida-Lynn Godin for the period from May 3, 2009 to July 18, 2009;
(6) Ida-Lynn Godin did not work for the Appellant during the period from May 3, 2009 to July 18, 2009;
(7) Ida-Lynn Godin lived in the Moncton area since 2005;
(8) Ida-Lynn Godin lived with her 14 year old son at 57 Horsman Street in Salisbury, New Brunswick until December 2009;
(9) Rudi Mallaley who worked for the Appellant during the lobster season of 2009 did not identify Ida-Lynn Godin as a co-worker;
(10) Rudi Mallaley is Ida-Lynn Godin’s daughter;
(qq) The assumptions of fact with respect to Wayde Godin are as follows:
(1) Wayde Godin is the Appellant’s brother;
(2) The Appellant issued Records of Employment to Wayde Godin for the periods from August 6, 2007 to October 20, 2007, from July 27, 2008 to October 4, 2008 and from July 26, 2009 to October 10, 2009;
(3) Wayde Godin did not work as a truck driver for the Appellant or wash the Appellant’s crates or trucks during the periods from August 6, 2007 to October 20, 2007, from July 27, 2008 to October 4, 2008 and from July 26, 2009 to October 10, 2009;
(4) The Appellant engaged Lucien Carrier, Ricky Esliger and Jeffrey Hickey as truck drivers during 2007, 2008 and 2009;
(5) No more than one delivery of crab was made to Lamèque Co-op each day during crab season;
(6) Fifteen workers washed crates and trucks at the Appellant’s house during the crab season of 2007, 2008 and 2009;
(7) Wayde Godin did not work for the Appellant during the periods from August 6, 2007 to October 20, 2007, from July 27, 2008 to October 4, 2008 and from July 26, 2009 to October 10, 2009;
(rr) The assumptions of fact with respect to Léo Guitard are as follows:
(1) The Appellant issued Records of Employment to Léo Guitard for the periods from September 2, 2007 to September 29, 2007 and from September 28, 2008 to October 18, 2008;
(2) Léo Guitard did not unload from or load the bait onto the Appellant’s trucks; he did not weigh the bait in crates or clean the crates at the Appellant’s house; he did not take the crates full of bait to the Jaquet River, Dalhousie or New Mills wharfs during 2007 or 2008;
(3) Léo Guitard did not work alone at the Appellant’s house;
(4) Nine other workers performed labor work at the Appellant’s house during the periods from September 2, 2007 to September 29, 2007 and from September 28, 2008 to October 18, 2008;
(5) Léo Guitard did not work with Jason Godin in 2007;
(6) Jason Godin did not work for the Appellant in 2007;
(7) Léo Guitard did not work with the Appellant’s nephew, Carlton, in 2008;
(8) The Appellant did not hire Carlton in 2008;
(9) During 2007 and 2008, there were several days when there was no crab landing and no sale of crab;
(10) Léo Guitard started working one month into the 2007 crab season and two months into the 2008 crab season;
(11) There was no increase in the Appellant’s business activity at the time of Léo Guitard’s engagement;
(12) Léo Guitard did not work for the Appellant during the periods from September 2, 2007 to September 29, 2007 and from September 28, 2008 to October 18, 2008;
(ss) The assumptions of fact with respect to Brad Hickey are as follows:
(1) The Appellant issued a Record of Employment to Brad Hickey for the period from September 2, 2007 to December 1, 2007;
(2) Brad Hickey did not work as a laborer or a deckhand on the Appellant’s fishing vessel during the period from September 2, 2007 to December 1, 2007;
(3) The Appellant fished lobster only and lobster season ended on June 30th of each year;
(4) Brad Hickey was not hired to clean up in the fall and pick up traps;
(5) Brad Hickey did not run the catch to Arseneau’s fish market;
(6) In 2007, the last delivery of crab to Lamèque Coop was made on October 21, 2007;
(7) All the other workers engaged in the fishing operations of the Appellant’s business in 2007 were laid off by October 21st;
(8) Ten workers performed labor work for the Appellant during the period from September 2, 2007 to October 21, 2007;
(9) Of 12 co-workers identified by Brad Hickey, nine were either not working for the Appellant during the same period of employment or were not working in the fishing operations of the Appellant;
(10) Brad Hickey did not work for the Appellant an average of 12 hours a day, seven days a week for 13 weeks during the period from September 2, 2007 to December 1, 2007;
(11) Brad Hickey did not work for the Appellant during the period from September 2, 2007 to December 1, 2007;
(tt) The assumptions of fact with respect to Brenda Hickey are as follows:
(1) The Appellant issued Records of Employment to Brenda Hickey for the periods from April 29, 2007 to July 14, 2007 and from April 21, 2008 to July 5, 2008;
(2) Brenda Hickey did not work as a laborer, fish processing laborer or construction laborer for the Appellant during the periods from April 29, 2007 to July 14, 2007 and from April 21, 2008 to July 5, 2008;
(3) Brenda Hickey did not work 12 hours a day, six or seven days a week during the periods from April 29, 2007 to July 14, 2007 and from April 21, 2008 to July 5, 2008;
(4) Six other workers performed labor work at the Appellant’s house during the periods from April 29, 2007 to July 14, 2007 and from April 21, 2008 to July 5, 2008;
(5) Brenda Hickey did not work for the Appellant during the periods from April 29, 2007 to July 14, 2007 and from April 21, 2008 to July 5, 2008;
(uu) The assumptions of fact with respect to Rodney Hickey are as follows:
(1) The Appellant issued a Record of Employment to Rodney Hickey for the period from August 17, 2008 to October 18, 2008;
(2) Rodney Hickey did not put bait in crates, load crab onto the truck or work in the forestry for the Appellant;
(3) Rodney Hickey did not cut or haul wood on the Eel River Bar First Nations property;
(4) Rodney Hickey did not operate the Appellant’s skidder, Rockey Hickey did;
(5) Rocky Hickey is Rodney Hickey’s brother;
(6) Rodney Hickey did not work with Steven Esliger, Jeff Hickey or Thomas Carrier;
(7) Thomas Carrier was a deckhand during lobster season and his employment ended on August 15, 2008;
(8) Rodney Hickey did not work for the Appellant during the period from August 17, 2008 to October 18, 2008;
(vv) The assumptions of fact with respect to the Late Arthur Lapointe are as follows:
(1) Arthur Lapointe died on November 25, 2010;
(2) Arthur Lapointe worked 295 hours for another payer and required 420 hours to qualify for employment insurance benefits;
(3) The Appellant issued a Record of Employment to Arthur Lapointe for the period from June 1, 2008 to June 14, 2008;
(4) Arthur Lapointe did not load the crates from the boat, take them to the weight master and load them onto the Appellant’s truck;
(5) Arthur Lapointe did not work at Dalhousie or Jacquet River wharfs;
(6) Off-loading crates from the boat and onto the trucks did not take more than 30 to 45 minutes;
(7) Arthur Lapointe did not work 12 hours a day, seven days a week, for two weeks;
(8) Arthur Lapointe was not paid by the Appellant;
(9) Arthur Lapointe did not work for the Appellant during the period from June 1, 2008 to June 14, 2008;
(ww) The assumptions of fact with respect to Tracy Lapointe are as follows:
(1) The Appellant issued a Record of Employment to Tracy Lapointe for the period from August 5, 2007 to October 13, 2007;
(2) Tracy Lapointe did not drive a truck and did not go to Dalhousie, Jacquet River or Belledune wharfs to weigh the fish and bait for the Appellant during the period from August 5, 2007 to October 13, 2007;
(3) There was no crab landing at the Jacquet River or Belledune wharfs in 2007;
(4) Tracy Lapointe did not work for the Appellant an average of 12 hours, seven days a week for ten weeks for the Appellant;
(5) Five other workers worked for the Appellant during the period from August 5, 2007 to October 13, 2007;
(6) Tracey Lapointe did not work for the Appellant during the period from August 5, 2007 to October 13, 2007;
(xx) The assumptions of fact with respect to the Late Michael Tardiff are as follows:
(1) Michael Tardiff died in February 2011;
(2) Michael Tardiff worked 98 hours and 299 hours for other payers prior to August 13, 2007;
(3) Michael Tardiff required 420 hours to qualify for employment insurance benefits;
(4) The Appellant issued a Record of Employment to Michael Tadiff for the period from August 13, 2007 to September 1, 2007;
(5) Michael Tardiff did not work an average of 11 hours per day, six or seven days a week for three weeks during the period from August 13, 2007 to September 1, 2007 for the Appellant;
(6) Seven other workers perform labor work for the Appellant during the period from August 13, 2007 to September 1, 2007;
(7) Michael Tardiff did not work for the Appellant during the period from August 13, 2007 to September 1, 2007;
Workers listed in Schedule “B”:
(yy) The assumptions of fact with respect to Lucien Carrier are as follows:
(1) The Appellant issued Records of Employment to Lucien Carrier for the periods from August 5, 2007 to October 20, 2007, from July 27, 2008 to October 2, 2008 and from August 2, 2009 to October 17, 2009;
(2) Lucien Carrier worked as a truck driver to deliver rock crab from New Mills Wharf (the “Wharf”) to Lamèque Co-op and to return with bait purchased from Lamèque Co-op;
(3) The Records of Employment issued by the Appellant inflated the hours and wages of Lucien Carrier;
(4) Lucien Carrier did not work 869, 856 and 864 hours during the periods from August 5, 2007 to October 20, 2007, from July 27, 2008 to October 2, 2008 and from August 2, 2009 to October 17, 2009, respectively;
(5) Lucien Carrier did not earn $10,428, $11,128 and $11,232 during the periods from August 5, 2007 to October 20, 2007, from July 27, 2008 to October 2, 2008 and from August 2, 2009 to October 17, 2009, respectively;
(6) When delivering to Lamèque Co-op, Lucien Carrier worked 12 hours per day;
(7) Lucien Carrier occasionally drove to Arseneau Fish Market to pick up or deliver products;
(8) Arseneau Fish Market was approximately 40 kilometers away from the Appellant’s location and an additional 33 kilometers from Jacquet River where the Appellant sold fish out of a truck;
(9) Lucien Carrier did not work more than eight hours a day when delivering and picking up products from Arseneau Fish Market;
(10) Lucien Carrier did not wash crates and trucks for the Appellant;
(11) The Appellant employed several other workers to wash crates and trucks during Lucien Carrier’s periods of employment;
(12) During the 2007 period, Lucien Carrier made 42 trips to Lamèque Co-op and five trips to Arseneau Fish Market;
(13) During the 2007 period, Lucien Carrier did not work more than 544 hours for the Appellant;
(14) During the 2008 period, Lucien Carrier made 44 trips to Lamèque Co-op and no trips to Arseneau Fish Market;
(15) During the 2008 period, Lucien Carrier did not work more than 528 hours for the Appellant;
(16) During the 2009 period, Lucien Carrier made 39 trips to Lamèque Co-op and seven trips to Arseneau Fish Market;
(17) During the 2009 period, Lucien Carrier did not work more than 524 hours for the Appellant;
(18) Lucien Carrier was paid an hourly wage of $12 in 2007 and $13 in 2008 and 2009;
(19) Lucien Carrier’s wages received from the Appellant did not exceed $6,528, $6,864 and $6,812 during the periods from August 5, 2007 to October 20, 2007, from July 27, 2008 to October 2, 2008 and from August 2, 2009 to October 17, 2009, respectively;
(zz) The assumptions of fact with respect to Tom Carrier are as follows:
(1) The Appellant issued Records of Employment to Tom Carrier for the periods from April 22, 2007 to July 14, 2007, from April 21, 2008 to August 15, 2008 and from April 19, 2009 to July 11, 2009;
(2) The Records of Employment issued by the Appellant inflated the hours worked by Tom Carrier;
(3) Tom Carrier did not work 994, 1020 and 1008 hours during the periods from April 22, 2007 to July 14, 2007, from April 21, 2008 to August 15, 2008 and from April 19, 2009 to July 11, 2009, respectively;
(4) Tom Carrier did not work and was not paid during the period from July 6, 2008 to August 2, 2008, as he was sick;
(5) During the lobster season, May 1st to June 30th of 2007, 2008 and 2009, Tom Carrier was deckhand on the Appellant’s fishing boat and his duties included preparing lobster traps and fishing lobster;
(6) In 2007, 2008 and 2009, the Appellant fished lobster exclusively out of Jacquet River wharf;
(7) There was no lobster landing at Jacquet River wharf on 12 days during 2007, 20 days during 2008; and ten days during 2009;
(8) Tom Carrier worked 12 hours a day when fishing;
(9) Prior to the start of the lobster season each year, Tom Carrier worked for the Appellant, making preparations for the fishing season;
(10) Following the end of the lobster season each year, Tom Carrier worked for the Appellant, cleaning up the fishing gear;
(11) Tom Carrier did not work more than eight hours a day for the Appellant when working prior to and after the close of the lobster season;
(12) In 2007, Tom Carrier worked nine days for the Appellant, preparing for the lobster season; he fished lobster for 49 days and cleaned up for 14 days;
(13) In 2007, Tom Carrier did not work for the Appellant more than 772 hours during a period of 12 weeks;
(14) In 2007, Tom Carrier was paid $875 per week and earned a total of $10,500;
(15) During the period from April 21, 2008 to July 5, 2008, Tom Carrier worked for the Appellant ten days preparing for the lobster season; he fished lobster for 41 days and cleaned up for five days;
(16) During the period from April 21, 2008 to July 5, 2008, Tom Carrier did not work for the Appellant more than 612 hour during a period of 11 weeks;
(17) During the period from April 21, 2008 to July 5, 2008, Tom Carrier was paid $925 per week and earned a total of $10,175;
(18) During the period from August 5, 2008 to August 15, 2008, Tom Carrier also worked as a laborer for the Appellant;
(19) During the period from August 5, 2008 to August 15, 2008, Tom Carrier worked 60 hours a week for a total of 120 hours for the Appellant;
(20) During the period from August 5, 2008 to August 15, 2008, Tom Carrier was paid $10 per hour and his total earnings were $1,200;
(21) During the period from April 19, 2009 to July 11, 2009, Tom Carrier worked for the Appellant 12 days preparing for the lobster season, he fished lobster for 51 days and cleaned up for 11 days;
(22) During the period from April 19, 2009 to July 11, 2009, Tom Carrier did not work for the Appellant more than 780 hours during a period of 12 weeks;
(23) During the period from April 19, 2009 to July 11, 2009, Tom Carrier was paid $950 per week and earned a total of $11,400;
(aaa) The assumptions of fact with respect to Kyle Dempsey are as follows:
(1) Kyle Dempsey worked as laborer for the Appellant during the period from August 24, 2008 to September 20, 2008, which is crab season;
(2) The Appellant issued a Record of Employment to Kyle Dempsey for the period from August 24, 2008 to September 20, 2008;
(3) The Records of Employment issued by the Appellant inflated the hours and wages of Kyle Dempsey;
(4) Kyle Dempsey did not work for the Appellant for 336 hours during the period from August 24, 2008 to September 20, 2008;
(5) Kyle Dempsey did not earn $3,360 during the period from August 24, 2008 to September 20, 2008