Marathon Electric Ltd. v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue)

Marathon Electric Ltd. v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2004-10-20
Neutral citation
2004 FCA 355
File numbers
A-28-04
Decision Content
Date: 20041020
Docket: A-28-04
Citation: 2004 FCA 355
CORAM: NOËL J.A.
EVANS J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
BETWEEN:
MARATHON ELECTRIC LTD.
Appellant/Applicant
and
MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE
Respondent
Heard at Vancouver, British Columbia on October 20, 2004.
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Vancouver, British Columbia on October 20, 2004.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: EVANS J.A.
Date: 20041020
Docket: A-28-04
Citation: 2004 FCA 355
CORAM: NOËL J.A.
EVANS J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
BETWEEN:
MARATHON ELECTRIC LTD.
Appellant/Applicant
and
MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Vancouver, British Columbia on October 20, 2004)
EVANS J. A.
[1] This is an appeal from a decision of the Tax Court of Canada holding that certain named workers of Marathon Electric Ltd. were employed in insurable and pensionable employment for the purposes of the Employment Insurance Act, S.C. 1996, c. 23 and the Canada Pension Plan, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-8: Marathon Electric Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue, 2003 TCC 714. The Judge dismissed Marathon's appeal and confirmed the assessments issued to it by the Minister in respect of the premiums owing under the Act and the Plan.
[2] Despite the valiant efforts of counsel for the appellant, we are not satisfied that the Tax Court Judge committed reviewable error in his application of the legal tests established in 671122 Ontario Ltd. v. Sagaz Industries Canada Inc., [2001] 2 S.C.R. 983, for determining whether a person is engaged as an independent contractor or as an employee for EI and CPP purposes. Counsel did not persuade us that, on the basis of the evidence before him, the Judge's conclusion was unreasonable.
[3] Nor do we agree that the Judge erred in his appreciation of the relevant legal tests to be applied. In response to the argument that the Judge failed to give sufficient weight to the parties' intention respecting their contracts, we would note that in Wolf v. Canada, [2002] 4 F.C. 396 at para. 124, Noël J.A. observed: "This is not a case where the parties labelled their relationship in a certain way with a view to achieving a tax benefit."
[4] For these reasons, the appeal will be dismissed with costs.
(Sgd.) "John Maxwell Evans"
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-28-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: Marathon Electric Ltd. V Minister of National Revenue
PLACE OF HEARING: Vancouver, B.C.
DATE OF HEARING: October 20, 2004
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT: NOEL, EVANS, PELLETIER, JJ A
REASONS READ FROM THE BENCH BY: EVANS J.A.
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Craig McTavish FOR THE APPELLANT
Ms. Kristy Foreman Gear FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Kahn Zack Ehrlich Lithwick FOR THE APPELLANT
Richmond BC
Mr. Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General for Canada