Lacroix c. M.R.N.

Lacroix c. M.R.N.
Court (s) Database
Tax Court of Canada Judgments
Date
2007-03-27
Neutral citation
2007 TCC 81
File numbers
2006-1785(EI)
Judges and Taxing Officers
Pierre Archambault
Subjects
Employment Insurance Act
Old Age Security Act
Decision Content
Docket : 2006-1785(EI)
BETWEEN:
ROCK LACROIX,
Appellant,
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent,
and
GRANIT PLUS INC.,
Intervenor.
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
____________________________________________________________________
Appeal heard on common evidence with the appeals of
Yvan Lacroix (2006‑1793(EI)) and Pierre Lacroix (2006‑1794(EI))
on December 1, 2006, at Sherbrooke, Quebec.
Before: The Honourable Justice Pierre Archambault
Appearances:
Agent for the Appellant:
Alain Savoie
Counsel for the Respondent:
Marie-Claude Landry
Agent for the Intervenor:
Alain Savoie
____________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
The appeal is dismissed and the Minister’s decision is confirmed in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 27th day of March 2007.
“Pierre Archambault”
Archambault J.
Translation certified true
on this 4th day of July 2007
Gibson Boyd, Translator
Docket: 2006-1793(EI)
BETWEEN:
YVAN LACROIX,
Appellant,
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent,
and
GRANIT PLUS INC.,
Intervenor.
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
____________________________________________________________________
Appeal heard on common evidence with the appeals of
Rock Lacroix (2006‑1785(EI)) and Pierre Lacroix (2006‑1794(EI))
on December 1, 2006, at Sherbrooke, Quebec.
Before: The Honourable Justice Pierre Archambault
Appearances:
Agent for the Appellant:
Alain Savoie
Counsel for the Respondent:
Marie-Claude Landry
Agent for the Intervenor:
Alain Savoie
____________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
The appeal is dismissed and the Minister’s decision is confirmed in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 27th day of March 2007.
“Pierre Archambault”
Archambault J.
Translation certified true
on this 4th day of July 2007
Gibson Boyd, Translator
Docket: 2006-1794(EI)
BETWEEN:
PIERRE LACROIX,
Appellant,
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent,
and
GRANIT PLUS INC.,
Intervenor.
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
____________________________________________________________________
Appeal heard on common evidence with the appeals of
Rock Lacroix (2006‑1785(EI)) and Yvan Lacroix (2006‑1793(EI))
on December 1, 2006, at Sherbrooke, Quebec.
Before: The Honourable Justice Pierre Archambault
Appearances:
Agent for the Appellant:
Alain Savoie
Counsel for the Respondent:
Marie-Claude Landry
Agent for the Intervenor:
Alain Savoie
____________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
The appeal is dismissed and the Minister’s decision is confirmed in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 27th day of March 2007.
“Pierre Archambault”
Archambault J.
Translation certified true
on this 4th day of July 2007
Gibson Boyd, Translator
Citation: 2007TCC81
Date: 20070327
Dockets: 2006-1785(EI)
2006-1793(EI)
2006-1794(EI)
BETWEEN:
ROCK LACROIX,
YVAN LACROIX,
PIERRE LACROIX,
Appellants,
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent,
and
GRANIT PLUS INC.,
Intervenor.
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Archambault J.
[1] Messrs. Rock, Yvan and Pierre Lacroix (the Workers) appealed from a decision by the Minister of National Revenue (the Minister) on the insurability of their employment with Granit Plus Inc. (the Payor) for the period of January 16, 2004, to May 26, 2005 (the relevant period). The Minister determined that the Workers all held insurable employment for the purposes of the Employment Insurance Act (the Act). The Workers argue that they did not hold such employment because, according to them, the nature of the contractual relationship binding them to the Payor was not that of a contract of employment, but rather that of a contract for services. Alternatively, they argue that if there was a contract of employment between them and the Payor, their employment was, for the purposes of the Act, excluded from the notion of insurable earnings due to the non-arm’s length relationship between them and the Payor. Furthermore, they argue that the Payor wrongly exercised its discretionary power under paragraph 5(3)(b) of the Act in that it is not reasonable to conclude that the Workers and the Payor would have entered into a substantially similar agreement had they been dealing at arm’s length.
[2] In making his decision in the case of Rock Lacroix, the Minister relied on the following assumptions of fact set out in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the Reply to the Notice of Appeal:
[TRANSLATION]
5. The Minister determined that the Appellant exercised employment for the Payor under a contract of service, relying on the following assumptions of fact:
(a) the Payor was incorporated on February 25, 1992; (admitted)
(b) the Payor operated a business that specialized in the production and sale of granite kitchen counters; (admitted)
(c) the Payor operated year round, closing the factory for two weeks at Christmas and two weeks during the summer; (admitted)
(d) the Payor employed 30 to 35 employees; (admitted)
(e) in 2004, the total revenue of the business was approximately 3 million dollars; (admitted)
(f) the Appellant was the general manager of the Payor; (admitted)
(g) the Appellant’s duties were to supervise the office employees and the sales representatives, to verify submissions and look after advertising; (admitted)
(h) the Payor had a right of control over the Appellant; (denied)
(i) the Appellant worked in the Payor’s offices; (denied)
(j) the Appellant had to inform the Payor of absences; (denied)
(k) the Appellant had a work schedule of Monday to Friday from 7:30 a.m. to 630 p.m., or 11 hours per day for a 55‑hour week; (denied)
(l) the Appellant had a fixed weekly salary of $830 up until June 13, 2004, after which this salary was $1,000; (admitted)
(m) the Appellant’s remuneration was decided by the Payor; (denied)
(n) the Appellant received his remuneration regularly each week; (admitted)
(o) the Appellant took four weeks of paid vacation each year; (denied)
(p) the Appellant did not have to incur any expenses in carrying out his duties for the Payor; (denied)
(q) all material and equipment used by the Appellant belonged to the Payor including a vehicle for his travel; (denied)
6. The Appellant and the Payor are related persons under the meaning of the Income Tax Act[1] because:
(a) The Payor’s shareholders, each one with one third of the voting shares, were 9101‑4399 Québec Inc., 9101‑4498 Québec Inc. and 9101‑4514 Québec Inc. (admitted)
(b) The shareholder of 9101‑4399 Québec Inc. with 100% of the voting shares was the Appellant, Rock Lacroix. (admitted)
(c) The shareholder of 9101‑4498 Québec Inc. with 100% of the voting shares was Pierre Lacroix. (admitted)
(d) The shareholder of 9101‑4514 Québec Inc with 100% of the voting shares was Yvan Lacroix. (admitted)
(e) Rock Lacroix, Pierre Lacroix and Yvan Lacroix are brothers. (admitted)
(f) The Appellant and his brothers are members of a related group that controls the Payor. (admitted)
7. The Minister also determined that the Appellant was deemed to be at arm’s length with the Payor in his employment, as he was satisfied that it was reasonable to conclude that the Appellant and the Payor would have entered into a substantially similar agreement if they were dealing at arm’s length, given the following circumstances (denied):
(a) the Payor had an active corporate life; (neither admitted nor denied)
(b) the Appellant’s duties were necessary and essential to the proper operation of the Payor’s business; (admitted)
(c) the nature and the importance of the Appellant’s work were reasonable; (neither admitted nor denied)
(d) the Appellant’s salary was paid regularly; (admitted)
(e) on March 24, 2006, Yvan Lacroix stated to a representative of the Respondent that the Appellant’s salary had been determined by the shareholders; (denied)
(f) under the shareholder agreement of April 28, 1994, any important decision, such as the remuneration of a shareholder or family member, or the distribution of profits must be voted unanimously; (neither admitted nor denied)
(g) the Appellant’s salary was approximately $18.20 per hour, that is $1,000 divided by 55 hours; (denied)
(h) the two foremen, Stéphane Robert and Éric Filion were paid $17.59 and $16.70 per hour respectively; (admitted)
(i) in 2004, the Appellant, the two other directors and the salesman Joël Létourneau received bonuses paid by the Payor; (neither admitted nor denied)
(j) gross remuneration of $1,000 per week was reasonable remuneration for the Appellant; (denied)
(k) the Appellant was entitled to yearly vacations; (denied)
(l) the Appellant provided services year round, which corresponded with the Payor’s needs; (admitted)
(m) the duration of the Appellant’s work was reasonable; (neither admitted nor denied)
(n) the nature and importance of the work, the remuneration, the duration of the Appellant’s work were reasonable. (neither admitted nor denied)
[3] The admissions made in the appeal of Rock Lacroix also apply in respect of the appeals of Yvan and Pierre Lacroix. With regard to the description of the duties of Yvan Lacroix, it is admitted that he was the production manager[2] during the relevant Period, while Pierre Lacroix was maintenance and installation manager[3] during the same period.
[4] The evidence filed at the hearing revealed that the Payor had been in business since 1992 and had merged with another company, Modern Granit, which also belonged to the three Workers and had been in operation since 1989. According to Rock Lacroix, the workers had each invested approximately $5,000 each in the payor company when it was founded. Thereafter, they guaranteed up to 20% of a loan of approximately $350,000 granted to the Payor. They were moreover exonerated from their guarantee once the Payor reimbursed this 20%.
[5] Each of the Workers testified at the hearing to describe the role he played within the Payor’s business during the relevant period. Mr. Rock Lacroix acted as general manager and looked after management, including management of relations with the banker and the accountant. He supervised the person in charge of labour relations, Ms. Pelchat, who also testified at the hearing. He also looked after sales (marketing) and procurement of raw materials, in particular those that were imported.
[6] In the course of his duties, he had to be absent regularly from the Payor’s establishment. He drove at least 1,000 kilometres each week for many years to visit clients and establish business relationships. The Payor’s territory covered the Maritimes, Quebec and the Ottawa region. Moreover, the Payor provided Rock Lacroix with a car and paid all fuel and maintenance costs. For 2005, Rock Lacroix acknowledged that 20% of his automobile costs were personal expenses.
[7] He indicated that he could spend 25 to 90 hours per week on his work. His schedule therefore could vary from week to week. He specified that 25 hours per week could be the number of hours during two weeks of the year, while 90 hours could be the number of hours during four weeks. In general, he estimated his hours, without counting them, at 60 or 65 hours per week.
[8] According to Rock Lacroix, no one supervised his work; thus he could be absent for as long as he liked. For example, while his residence was being renovated, Mr. Lacroix was often absent to see to the proper execution of the renovation work. In addition, as he had five children, he could occasionally be absent to attend their activities. He took, at the time of his choice, five to seven weeks of vacation per year.
[9] Yvan Lacroix, production manager, estimated that he provided 60 or 65 hours of work per week to the Payor. Like his two brothers, he did not count his hours. This was just an estimate. He owned a maple grove and a wood lot that occupied part of his time, especially during the sugaring season. When he was absent to see to such activities, he did not have to ask permission from his brothers.
[10] As for Pierre Lacroix, he liked to attend country music and rodeo festivals, such as the Festival de St-Tite. When he was absent, he did not have to ask permission any more than the others, but like them, I presume, he informed his brothers of his absence and took the necessary measures so that all would be in order before his departure. If necessary, he could be reached during his absences.
[11] All of the workers spent time at the Payor’s business during their vacation periods. For example, Pierre Lacroix maintained the machinery during the vacations of the Payor’s other employees.
[12] With regard to the sick leave policy, the Payor’s employees were entitled to one day per year, while the Workers were paid regardless of the number of sick days they took. However, the evidence does not show whether the Workers took many days of sick leave.
[13] Yvan Lacroix used his own car to go to work and did not have a car provided by the Payor. He occasionally had to travel for business purposes, in which case the Payor would reimburse his fuel costs. The evidence did not reveal that Pierre Lacroix had a car provided by the Payor. I assume that he was entitled to the same conditions as his brother Yvan with regard to the use of his car for the Payor’s benefit.
[14] With regard to their remuneration, the Workers all received the same base salary, which was $830 per week at the beginning of the relevant period. Starting from June 13, 2004, it was $1,000. On top of this base salary, they received bonuses of $25,000 in 2004 and $10,000 in 2005. According to Rock Lacroix, these bonuses had been paid due to the Workers’ needs. He pointed out in particular that his brother Pierre had wished to acquire a recreational vehicle or camper. Yvan Lacroix indicated that the salaries paid by the Payor were decided by the Workers informally, and not necessarily during a formal shareholders meeting. Only one of the Payor’s employees received a bonus, a sales representative who received $4,700 in 2004. The Workers did not have a pension fund or registered retirement savings plan funded by the Payor. Rock Lacroix was unaware of the remuneration received by other general managers or service managers in the granite kitchen counter industry in his region.
[15] During the 1990s, Rock Lacroix indicated, the Workers had received remuneration lower than that of the Payor’s employees because of the recession experienced at that time. It was important for them that the Payor regain good financial health.
[16] Generally, the Workers discussed important decisions affecting the Payor, but each had significant latitude in the direction of his respective department. For example, it was mentioned that Pierre Lacroix had wanted the Payor to acquire a four wheel drive utility vehicle for the maintenance service, while Rock Lacroix did not see the point. However he respected his brother’s decision. As for Pierre Lacroix, he had certain reservations as to the choice of the location where the showroom was to be set up in Montréal, but he went along with Rock Lacroix’s decision. In addition, Yvan Lacroix had had doubts as to whether it was appropriate to purchase computerized machinery, but acknowledged that it had been the right decision. The evidence does not reveal the position of the third brother when these decisions were made. However, Yvan Lacroix acknowledged that it was perfectly normal that there was communication between the three brothers in order to discuss decisions to be taken by the Payor.
[17] The signatures of two of the three Workers was required for the Payor’s cheques of $5,000 or more to be issued. Below this amount, a single signature was sufficient.
[18] In her testimony, the appeals officer filed her Report on an appeal (Exhibit I‑2). In this report, she confirms that the first issue she had to determine was whether there was a real contract of employment between the Workers and the Payor and the second was whether it was reasonable to conclude that an unrelated person would have been hired under substantially similar conditions to those of each of the Workers during the period at issue.
[19] To address the first issue, she indicated at page 4 of her report:
[TRANSLATION]
In Quebec, in order to determine whether employment is insurable, for the purposes of the Employment Insurance Act, we must refer to the Civil Code of Quebec,[4] which dictates the rules of a contract of employment and those of a contract of enterprise or a contract for services.
[20] It was therefore necessary to analyze each worker’s performance of work, their remuneration and the relationship of subordination to determine whether there was a contract of employment. Then she had to deal with the issue of the exclusion of the work of each of the Workers under paragraph 5(2)(i) of the Act and, in performing her analysis, exercise the powers conferred upon the Minister by paragraph 5(3)(b) of the Act.
[21] Here is the appeals officer’s analysis, in her Report on an appeal:
[TRANSLATION]
Anaylysis of non-arm’s length dealings:
Since the Workers are three brothers and hold all of the shares of the Payor, this is a situation where the Payor and the Workers are related persons as defined at subparagraph 251(2)(b)(i) of the Income Tax Act.
Related persons are deemed not to deal with each other at arm’s length under paragraph 251(1)(a) of this same Act.
Nature and importance of work:
The work of the Lacroix brothers was necessary to the proper functioning of the Payor’s business. The volume of work was variable, depending on the time of year, and salary was paid regularly, every week, regardless of the number of hours worked (between 6 and 10 per day).
These conditions could have been agreed upon by persons dealing with each other at arm’s length.
Conditions of employment and remuneration:
The Payor had a right of control over the workers and this control was exercised, inter alia, through the fact that two of three signatures were required for all expenses over $5,000 and also by the fact that they had to replace one another.
The three Workers held salary insurance and the Payor’s other employees did not. This situation could be related to the fact that the three Workers were also shareholders, and as shareholders, they shared a certain financial responsibility with the Payor. These actions as shareholders must be distinguished from their work conditions as employees.
The facts also demonstrated that the bonuses paid ($25,000) were related to their condition of shareholder and the decision to pay them was made by a board of directors based on the financial statements.
As regards the services provided to the Payor, each of the three Workers had the required skills to have a free reign in executing the duties for which he was responsible.
The salary paid to the workers ($1,000 gross per week) is reasonable, given the responsibilities of each of them towards the Payor.
These conditions of employment surely would have been the same between persons dealing with each other at arm’s length.
Duration:
The Workers did between 6 and 10 hours per day, always receiving the same fixed remuneration. Each of the three workers then decided to do overtime when the need was felt.
Without the non-arm’s length relationship between the parties, the Workers could have entered into a similar agreement with the Payor.
Conclusion from the analysis of non-arm’s length relationship:
The analysis of the non-arm’s length relationship demonstrates that a similar employment contract could have been entered into, with the same conditions, during the period at issue with a person dealing at arm’s length with the Payor.
Conclusion:
The above analysis of the of the components of the contract of employment demonstrate the existence of a contract of service, and that this employment was exercised in Canada, for pay. The requirements of subparagraph 5(1)(a) are met and it is therefore insurable employment within the meaning of the Act.
The analysis of non-arm’s length dealings also shows that the parties could have entered into a substantially similar contract. The Minister is therefore satisfied that it is reasonable to conclude that the elements analyzed and mentioned at subparagraph 5(3)(b) are of a nature to include this employment in insurable employment.
Workers’ position
[22] During his submissions, the agent for the Workers argued that there was no contract of employment within the meaning of the Civil Code between the Workers and the Payor. In his opinion, the degree of independence that each of the workers enjoyed revealed the existence of a contract for services. He even went as far as arguing that the corporate veil had to be lifted and that the Payor’s business was really that of the three workers.
[23] Alternatively, the Workers’ agent argued that even if there was a contract of employment, the Minister had wrongly exercised his discretionary power. It seemed to him unreasonable to conclude that the employment conditions would have been substantially similar if the Workers and the Payor had been dealing with each other at arm’s length. In particular, he argued that employees at arm’s length would not have accepted a decrease in pay, as had been the case for the Workers in the 1990s, and the bonuses would not have been determined based on the needs of the employees and the employees would not have accepted being disturbed during their vacations, as had been the case for the Workers. Employees at arm’s length could not have taken their vacation at the time of their choice outside of the normal vacation periods. They also would not have received calls at home. They would not have used a credit card without a credit limit, as had been the case for the Workers, and they would not have been allowed to be absent from work for personal activities, such as exploiting a maple grove and a wood lot, and they could not have been paid for more than one sick day per year.
[24] The Workers’ agent argued moreover that the appeals officer had wrongly applied the provisions of the Act since she had rendered her decision based on what were reasonable conditions and did not examine whether the conditions would have been the same in an arm’s length relationship. In addition, analysis of the pay in terms of hourly rate shows that the hourly rate of the Workers was well below the rate that an outsider would have accepted.
Analysis
[25] The relevant provisions for settling the dispute are subsections 5(1) and 5(3) and paragraph 5(2)(i) of the Act, which set out the following:
5(1) Subject to subsection (2), insurable employment is
(a) employment in Canada by one or more employers, under any express or implied contract of service or apprenticeship, written or oral, whether the earnings of the employed person are received from the employer or some other person and whether the earnings are calculated by time or by the piece, or partly by time and partly by the piece, or otherwise;
5(2) Insurable employment does not include:
(i) employment if the employer and employee are not dealing with each other at arm’s length.
5(3) For the purposes of paragraph (2)(i):
(a) the question of whether persons are not dealing with each other at arm’s length shall be determined in accordance with the Income Tax Act; and;
(b) if the employer is, within the meaning of that Act, related to the employee, they are deemed to deal with each other at arm’s length if the Minister of National Revenue is satisfied that, having regard to all the circumstances of the employment, including the remuneration paid, the terms and conditions, the duration and the nature and importance of the work performed, it is reasonable to conclude that they would have entered into a substantially similar contract of employment if they had been dealing with each other at arm’s length.
[Emphasis added.]
Existence of a contract of employment
[26] The appeals officer properly stated the applicable rule of law when she asserted that in Quebec, one must refer to the Civil Code to determine whether a contract constitutes a contract of employment or a contract for services. It should be recalled that the Federal Court of Appeal, in 9041‑6868 Québec Inc. v. M.N.R., 2005 FCA 334, put an end to the existing state of confusion in the application of the Act with regard to the relevant source of law to determine whether employment is insurable for the purposes of the Act when this employment is governed by Quebec law.[5]
[27] The contract of employment is defined at article 2085 C.C.Q. and contract for services is defined at articles 2098 and 2099 C.C.Q. This is what these articles stipulate:
2085 A contract of employment is a contract by which a person, the employee, undertakes for a limited period to do work for remuneration, according to the instructions and under the direction or control of another person, the employer.
2098 A contract of enterprise or for services is a contract by which a person, the contractor or the provider of services, as the case may be, undertakes to carry out physical or intellectual work for another person, the client or to provide a service, for a price which the client binds himself to pay.
2099 The contractor or the provider of services is free to choose the means of performing the contract and no relationship of subordination exists between the contractor or the provider of services and the client in respect of such performance.
[Emphasis added.]
[28] Here is what I wrote in the article on the contract of employment, at paragraph 38:
The definition of a contract of employment in article 2085 C.C.Q. identifies the three essential components of this type of contract: (i) the work, (ii) the remuneration and (iii) the relationship of subordination. In the case of a contract for services, there are four conditions to be met, according to articles 2098 and 2099 C.C.Q.: (i) the provision of a service, (ii) for a price, (iii) freedom for the provider of services to choose the means of performing the contract, and (iv) the absence of any relationship of subordination in respect of its performance. Analysis of articles 2088, 2098 and 2099 indicates that the relationship of subordination is not only an essential “component” of a contract of employment but is also the “distinguishing” feature of this type of contract as compared to a contract for services.
[Emphasis added.]
[29] In this case, the evidence clearly establishes the fact that the Workers provided services for the Payor and received remuneration. What is less clear, however, is the issue of whether there was a relationship of subordination between them and the Payor. Here is what I wrote on this issue at paragraph 41 of the article on the contract of employment:
The employee must do the work under the direction or control of the employer: there can be no contract of employment without a relationship of subordination. It is this condition that generally poses a problem. The concepts of “direction” and of “control” and, from the worker’s point of view, of “relationship of subordination” require clarification. According to the usual meaning of these terms, the employee must do the work under the authority and supervision of a person who leads or conducts the performance of the work as chief or head.
[Footnote omitted.]
[30] Here is the definition of “subordination” provided by Robert P. Gagnon, which I quoted in paragraph 44 of the article on the contract of employment:
[TRANSLATION]
(c) Subordination
90 — Distinguishing factor — The most significant feature characterizing a contract of employment is the subordination of the employee to the person for whom he works. It is by this feature that a contract of employment can be distinguished from other onerous contracts which also involve the performance of work for the benefit of another person for a price, such as a contract of enterprise or a contract for services under articles 2098 ff C.C.Q. Thus, while the contractor or the provider of services “is free”, under article 2099 C.C.Q., “to choose the means of performing the contract” and while between the contractor or the provider of services and the client “no relationship of subordination exists . . in respect of such performance,” it is a characteristic of a contract of employment, subject to its terms and conditions, that the employee personally performs the work agreed upon under the employer’s direction within the framework established by the employer.
. . .
92 — Concept — Historically, the civil law first developed a so-called strict or classical concept of legal subordination that was used as a test for the application of the principle of the civil liability of a principal for injury caused by the fault of his agents and servants in the performance of their duties (art. 1054 C.C.L.C.; art. 1463 C.C.Q.). This classical legal subordination was characterized by the immediate control exercised by the employer over the employee’s work in respect of its nature and the means of performance. Gradually, it was relaxed, giving rise to the concept of legal subordination in a broad sense. The diversification and specialization of occupations and work techniques often mean that the employer cannot realistically dictate regarding, or even directly supervise, the performance of the work. Thus, subordination has come to be equated with the power given a person, accordingly recognized as the employer, of determining the work to be done, overseeing its performance and controlling it. From the opposite perspective, an employee is a person who agrees to be integrated into the operating environment of a business so that it may receive the benefit of his work. In practice, one looks for a number of indicia of supervision that may, however, vary depending on the context: compulsory attendance at a workplace, the fairly regular assignment of work, imposition of rules of conduct or behaviour, requirement of activity reports, control over the quantity or quality of the work done, and so on. Work in the home does not preclude this sort of integration into the business.
. . .
94 — Result — In borderline cases, article 2085 C.C.Q. does not exclude resort to an examination of the situation and the parties’ economic relationship in order to determine the nature of their legal relationship. However, it does not authorize a characterization as a contract of employment on the basis of economic subordination. The subordination that it contemplates is essentially legal in nature. However, even in its most relaxed and attenuated forms, the situation of legal subordination should suffice to place the worker in the employee category. The exclusion of any relationship of subordination between a client and a contractor or provider of services now legitimizes this conclusion (art. 2099 C.C.Q.). Lastly, it will be noted incidentally that employee status can coexist, in the same person and in connection with the same economic or professional activity, with another status such as shareholder or director of the company, independent contractor or even employer.
[Emphasis added.]
[Footnotes omitted.]
[31] And, at paragraph 106 of the article on the contract of employment, I added:
It must be pointed out that the distinguishing feature of a contract of employment is not that the employer actually exercises power or control but that the employer had the power to exercise direction or control. Where the employer has not regularly exercised his power of direction or control, it is not easy to prove the existence of the “power”. It is not surprising, then, that in order to solve this problem the common law courts have opted to apply tests other than the control test. However, in Quebec, the courts do not have such leeway. They have to find that a relationship of subordination is either present or absent before they can characterize an agreement as a contract of employment or a contract for services. It is thus necessary to resort to proof by presumption of fact, namely indirect or direct circumstantial evidence.
[Emphasis added.]
[32] This description is based on the comments of Létourneau J.A. in D & J Driveway Inc. v. Canada (M.N.R.), 2003 FCA 453, [2003] F.C.J. No. 1784 (QL), of which paragraph 12 is reproduced at paragraph 73 of the article on the contract of employment:
Additionally, the duties assumed by the drivers were quite simple and specific: delivering the truck to the address indicated. No control was exercised over the way in which they carried out their duties. "The distinguishing feature of a contract of service" (now a contract of employment), Pratte J. wrote in Gallant v. M.N.R., [1989] F.C.J. No. 330, "is not the control actually exercised by the employer over his employee but the power the employer has to control the way the employee performs his duties." In the case at bar, this control over the actual performance of the duties did not exist.
[33] Paragraphs 106 et seq. of the article on the contract of employment deal with the circumstantial evidence that may be used to demonstrate the existence of the power of direction or control that a payor could exercise on the employees. These indicia include mandatory presence at a place of work, the requirement of a work schedule, the requirement of an exclusive personal performance of work, the nature of the work to be completed and the degree of integration into the payor’s activities. In respect of this last indicator, paragraphs 111 and 114 through 120 of the article on the contract of employment are here reproduced:
[111] All the indicia that have just been separately analysed could, when considered together, show a high degree of integration of the worker into the activities of the payer. This is a slightly different approach from the one described above. What is looked for in this case are not the indicia of the exercise of a power of direction or control but rather those that show that the work performed by the worker is in large part integrated into the payer’s activities. Such integration could, however, be in itself an indication of subordination. That is why it is dealt with separately here.
. . .
(i) Nature of the work
[114] The fact that the worker occupies a line position in the payer’s business, as a general manager or sales manager, for example, is an indication of the integration into the business and an indication of subordination.
(ii) Number of hours and payers
[115] If a worker devotes 35 or 40 hours of work a week to a single payer throughout the year — as in the preceding example of the dentist — one may conclude that this worker is integrated into the payer’s business and subject to the payer’s right of direction and control. This conclusion will be even more obvious if the payer is entitled to the exclusive use of the worker’s services. However, if the worker provides his services to a number of payers, as in the case of a housekeeping aide who cleans private homes, it will be easier to conclude that the worker is independent and that the relationship of subordination essential to the existence of a contract of employment is absent. However, the ability to work for other payers does not necessarily mean that a relationship of subordination does not exist, since it is possible to hold more than one job.
(iii) Location of the work
[116] The power to determine and control the place of performance of the work (the “where”) has been discussed above. If there is no evidence to prove that this power has been exercised, the fact that the work was performed in the payer’s establishment could be indicative of the integration of the work into the payer’s business and, therefore, indicate a power of direction or control over the worker. For example, work performed by seamstresses in the payer’s establishment would certainly be indicative of the existence of a relationship of subordination while work done in the seamstresses’ homes could be indicative of their independence.
[117] Of course, some tasks require that the work be done outside the payer’s establishment. Examples would be truck drivers or sales representatives. The relevance of the workplace is appreciably greater, then, in the case of work that can normally be done in the payer’s establishment but is in fact done elsewhere.
(iv) Provision of materials, equipment and staff and reimbursement of expenses
[118] The fact that the payer provides the worker with all the materials, equipment and other things needed to carry out the work (such as staff) or that the payer reimburses the worker for work-related expenses can be yet another element that shows the worker’s integration into the payer’s business.
(v) Extent of the worker’s decision-making power
[119] This element was also discussed earlier, in paragraph 110. It must be noted, however, that a worker’s limited decision-making power could also be indicative of a certain degree of integration into the payer’s business.
(vi) Ownership of the results of the work done by the worker
[120] Other indicia of the integration of the worker into the payer’s business and thus of the existence of a power of direction or control, include the following fact situations:
- the clientele served by the worker is the payer’s;
- the payer handles the collection of accounts;
- the payer holds the intellectual property in the results of the worker’s research.
[Emphasis added.]
[Footnotes omitted.]
[34] If this approach is applied to the facts of this appeal, there is no doubt that we are dealing with a contract of employment rather than a contract for services. Indeed, even if the Workers enjoy a great degree of independence with regard to the execution of their work, this independence is completely justified given the nature of their work: each of them is a department manager for the Payor. The fact that they generally dedicate more than 60 hours of work per week to the Payor’s activities, the fact that they occupy senior positions in the hierarchy of the business and the fact that most of their duties are performed at the Payor’s establishment, except in the case of Rock Lacroix, are serious indicators of the high degree of integration of the Worker into the Payor’s business and, therefore, of the existence of a relationship of subordination between the three Workers and the Payor.
[35] In the case of Rock Lacroix, it is perfectly natural that, in the course of his duties as general manager — he was also responsible for marketing — that he often be required to be absent from the Payor’s establishment. Even though the Workers suggested that they did not have to answer to anyone or that they seldom did, I firmly believe that the reality is completely different. Indeed, if one of the Workers ceased to adequately look after the department he was in charge of, — for example if he abused employees — the Payor would exercise its power of direction or control to ensure that the work assigned to the Worker was properly executed. I therefore have no hesitation in concluding that there was a relationship of subordination and therefore a contract of employment.
[36] The argument put forward by the Workers’ agent, to the effect that each of them provided his services under a contract for services, seems to me completely groundless. He argued moreover that the corporate veil had to be lifted to conclude essentially that the Payor’s business was that of each of the Workers. Taking the agent’s reasoning to the extreme, it would have to be concluded that each of the three Workers operated his own business, since they claimed to each work independently from each other. Yet the reality is completely different. There is only one business