Dubé Et Al v. M.N.R.

Dubé Et Al v. M.N.R.
Court (s) Database
Tax Court of Canada Judgments
Date
2005-12-02
Neutral citation
2005 TCC 652
File numbers
2004-3735(EI)
Judges and Taxing Officers
Alain Tardif
Subjects
Employment Insurance Act
Decision Content
Docket: 2004-3736(EI)
BETWEEN:
FERME JALNA INC.,
Appellant,
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent.
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
____________________________________________________________________
Appeal heard from May 16 to 19, 2005, at Rivière-du-Loup, Quebec
Before: The Honourable Justice Alain Tardif
Appearances:
Counsel for the Appellant:
Frédéric St-Jean
Counsel for the Respondent:
Stéphanie Côté
Julie David
____________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
The appeal under subsection 103(1) of the Employment Insurance Act is dismissed and the decision of the Minister of National Revenue is confirmed in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 2nd day of December 2005.
"Alain Tardif"
Tardif J.
Translation certified true
on this 19th day of June 2008.
Brian McCordick, Translator
Docket: 2004-3735(EI)
BETWEEN:
JEAN-MARIE DUBÉ,
Appellant,
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent.
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
____________________________________________________________________
Appeal heard from May 16 to 19, 2005, at Rivière-du-Loup, Quebec
Before: The Honourable Justice Alain Tardif
Appearances:
Counsel for the Appellant:
Frédéric St-Jean
Counsel for the Respondent:
Stéphanie Côté
Julie David
____________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
The appeal under subsection 103(1) of the Employment Insurance Act is dismissed and the decision of the Minister of National Revenue is confirmed in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 2nd day of December 2005.
"Alain Tardif"
Tardif J.
Translation certified true
on this 19th day of June 2008.
Brian McCordick, Translator
Docket: 2004-3771(EI)
BETWEEN:
DANY DUBÉ,
Appellant,
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent.
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
____________________________________________________________________
Appeal heard from May 16 to 19, 2005, at Rivière-du-Loup, Quebec
Before: The Honourable Justice Alain Tardif
Appearances:
Counsel for the Appellant:
Frédéric St-Jean
Counsel for the Respondent:
Stéphanie Côté
Julie David
____________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
The appeal under subsection 103(1) of the Employment Insurance Act is dismissed and the decision of the Minister of National Revenue is confirmed in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 2nd day of December 2005.
"Alain Tardif"
Tardif J.
Translation certified true
on this 19th day of June 2008.
Brian McCordick, Translator
Dockets: 2004-3744(EI)
2004-3745(EI)
BETWEEN:
FRANCIS OUELLET,
Appellant,
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent.
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
____________________________________________________________________
Appeals heard from May 16 to 19, 2005, at Rivière-du-Loup, Quebec
Before: The Honourable Justice Alain Tardif
Appearances:
Counsel for the Appellant:
Frédéric St-Jean
Counsel for the Respondent:
Stéphanie Côté
Julie David
____________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
The appeals under subsection 103(1) of the Employment Insurance Act are dismissed and the decisions of the Minister of National Revenue are confirmed in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 2nd day of December 2005.
"Alain Tardif"
Tardif J.
Translation certified true
on this 19th day of June 2008.
Brian McCordick, Translator
Dockets: 2004-3746(EI)
2004-3751(EI)
BETWEEN:
DENIS OUELLET,
Appellant,
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent.
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
____________________________________________________________________
Appeals heard from May 16 to 19, 2005, at Rivière-du-Loup, Quebec
Before: The Honourable Justice Alain Tardif
Appearances:
Counsel for the Appellant:
Frédéric St-Jean
Counsel for the Respondent:
Stéphanie Côté
Julie David
____________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
The appeals under subsection 103(1) of the Employment Insurance Act are dismissed and the decisions of the Minister of National Revenue are confirmed in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 2nd day of December 2005.
"Alain Tardif"
Tardif J.
Translation certified true
on this 19th day of June 2008.
Brian McCordick, Translator
Dockets: 2004-3774(EI)
2004-3775(EI)
BETWEEN:
GHISLAIN CHASSÉ,
Appellant,
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent.
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
____________________________________________________________________
Appeals heard from May 16 to 19, 2005, at Rivière-du-Loup, Quebec
Before: The Honourable Justice Alain Tardif
Appearances:
Counsel for the Appellant:
Frédéric St-Jean
Counsel for the Respondent:
Stéphanie Côté
Julie David
____________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
The appeals under subsection 103(1) of the Employment Insurance Act are dismissed and the decisions of the Minister of National Revenue are confirmed in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 2nd day of December 2005.
"Alain Tardif"
Tardif J.
Translation certified true
on this 19th day of June 2008.
Brian McCordick, Translator
Docket: 2004-3764(EI)
BETWEEN:
JOSEPH CHASSÉ,
Appellant,
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent.
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
____________________________________________________________________
Appeal heard from May 16 to 19, 2005, at Rivière-du-Loup, Quebec
Before: The Honourable Justice Alain Tardif
Appearances:
Counsel for the Appellant:
Frédéric St-Jean
Counsel for the Respondent:
Stéphanie Côté
Julie David
____________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
The appeal under subsection 103(1) of the Employment Insurance Act is dismissed and the decision of the Minister of National Revenue is confirmed in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 2nd day of December 2005.
"Alain Tardif"
Tardif J.
Translation certified true
on this 19th day of June 2008.
Brian McCordick, Translator
Dockets: 2004-3769(EI)
2004-3770(EI)
BETWEEN:
BRUNO DIONNE,
Appellant,
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent.
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
____________________________________________________________________
Appeals heard from May 16 to 19, 2005, at Rivière-du-Loup, Quebec
Before: The Honourable Justice Alain Tardif
Appearances:
Counsel for the Appellant:
Frédéric St-Jean
Counsel for the Respondent:
Stéphanie Côté
Julie David
____________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
The appeals under subsection 103(1) of the Employment Insurance Act are dismissed and the decisions of the Minister of National Revenue are confirmed in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 2nd day of December 2005.
"Alain Tardif"
Tardif J.
Translation certified true
on this 19th day of June 2008.
Brian McCordick, Translator
Dockets: 2004-3772(EI)
2004-3773(EI)
BETWEEN:
SERGE DIONNE,
Appellant,
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent.
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
____________________________________________________________________
Appeals heard from May 16 to 19, 2005, at Rivière-du-Loup, Quebec
Before: The Honourable Justice Alain Tardif
Appearances:
Counsel for the Appellant:
Frédéric St-Jean
Counsel for the Respondent:
Stéphanie Côté
Julie David
____________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
The appeals under subsection 103(1) of the Employment Insurance Act are dismissed and the decisions of the Minister of National Revenue are confirmed in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 2nd day of December 2005.
"Alain Tardif"
Tardif J.
Translation certified true
on this 19th day of June 2008.
Brian McCordick, Translator
Dockets: 2004-3765(EI)
2004-3766(EI)
BETWEEN:
DANIEL DUBÉ,
Appellant,
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent.
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
____________________________________________________________________
Appeals heard from May 16 to 19, 2005, at Rivière-du-Loup, Quebec
Before: The Honourable Justice Alain Tardif
Appearances:
Counsel for the Appellant:
Frédéric St-Jean
Counsel for the Respondent:
Stéphanie Côté
Julie David
____________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
The appeals under subsection 103(1) of the Employment Insurance Act are dismissed and the decisions of the Minister of National Revenue are confirmed in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 2nd day of December 2005.
"Alain Tardif"
Tardif J.
Translation certified true
on this 19th day of June 2008.
Brian McCordick, Translator
Docket: 2004-3767(EI)
BETWEEN:
GUILDO DUBÉ,
Appellant,
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent.
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
____________________________________________________________________
Appeal heard from May 16 to 19, 2005, at Rivière-du-Loup, Quebec
Before: The Honourable Justice Alain Tardif
Appearances:
Counsel for the Appellant:
Frédéric St-Jean
Counsel for the Respondent:
Stéphanie Côté
Julie David
____________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
The appeal under subsection 103(1) of the Employment Insurance Act is dismissed and the decision of the Minister of National Revenue is confirmed in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 2nd day of December 2005.
"Alain Tardif"
Tardif J.
Translation certified true
on this 19th day of June 2008.
Brian McCordick, Translator
Dockets: 2004-3761(EI)
2004-3763(EI)
BETWEEN:
DANIEL LAVOIE,
Appellant,
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent.
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
____________________________________________________________________
Appeals heard from May 16 to 19, 2005, at Rivière-du-Loup, Quebec
Before: The Honourable Justice Alain Tardif
Appearances:
Counsel for the Appellant:
Frédéric St-Jean
Counsel for the Respondent:
Stéphanie Côté
Julie David
____________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
The appeals under subsection 103(1) of the Employment Insurance Act are dismissed and the decisions of the Minister of National Revenue are confirmed in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 2nd day of December 2005.
"Alain Tardif"
Tardif J.
Translation certified true
on this 19th day of June 2008.
Brian McCordick, Translator
Dockets: 2004-3756(EI)
2004-3760(EI)
BETWEEN:
MAURICE LÉVESQUE,
Appellant,
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent.
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
____________________________________________________________________
Appeals heard from May 16 to 19, 2005, at Rivière-du-Loup, Quebec
Before: The Honourable Justice Alain Tardif
Appearances:
Counsel for the Appellant:
Frédéric St-Jean
Counsel for the Respondent:
Stéphanie Côté
Julie David
____________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
The appeals under subsection 103(1) of the Employment Insurance Act are dismissed and the decisions of the Minister of National Revenue are confirmed in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 2nd day of December 2005.
"Alain Tardif"
Tardif J.
Translation certified true
on this 19th day of June 2008.
Brian McCordick, Translator
Dockets: 2004-3753(EI)
2004-3754(EI)
BETWEEN:
BRIGITTE LORD,
Appellant,
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent.
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
____________________________________________________________________
Appeals heard from May 16 to 19, 2005, at Rivière-du-Loup, Quebec
Before: The Honourable Justice Alain Tardif
Appearances:
Counsel for the Appellant:
Frédéric St-Jean
Counsel for the Respondent:
Stéphanie Côté
Julie David
____________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
The appeals under subsection 103(1) of the Employment Insurance Act are dismissed and the decisions of the Minister of National Revenue are confirmed in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 2nd day of December 2005.
"Alain Tardif"
Tardif J.
Translation certified true
on this 19th day of June 2008.
Brian McCordick, Translator
Docket: 2004-3749(EI)
BETWEEN:
JULIE LORD,
Appellant,
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent.
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
____________________________________________________________________
Appeal heard from May 16 to 19, 2005, at Rivière-du-Loup, Quebec
Before: The Honourable Justice Alain Tardif
Appearances:
Counsel for the Appellant:
Frédéric St-Jean
Counsel for the Respondent:
Stéphanie Côté
Julie David
____________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
The appeal under subsection 103(1) of the Employment Insurance Act is dismissed and the decision of the Minister of National Revenue is confirmed in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 2nd day of December 2005.
"Alain Tardif"
Tardif J.
Translation certified true
on this 19th day of June 2008.
Brian McCordick, Translator
Docket: 2004-3750(EI)
BETWEEN:
CLAUDETTE MICHAUD,
Appellant,
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent.
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
____________________________________________________________________
Appeal heard from May 16 to 19, 2005, at Rivière-du-Loup, Quebec
Before: The Honourable Justice Alain Tardif
Appearances:
Counsel for the Appellant:
Frédéric St-Jean
Counsel for the Respondent:
Stéphanie Côté
Julie David
____________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
The appeal under subsection 103(1) of the Employment Insurance Act is dismissed and the decision of the Minister of National Revenue is confirmed in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 2nd day of December 2005.
"Alain Tardif"
Tardif J.
Translation certified true
on this 19th day of June 2008.
Brian McCordick, Translator
Docket: 2004-3752(EI)
BETWEEN:
BERTRAND OUELLET,
Appellant,
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent.
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
____________________________________________________________________
Appeal heard from May 16 to 19, 2005, at Rivière-du-Loup, Quebec
Before: The Honourable Justice Alain Tardif
Appearances:
Counsel for the Appellant:
Frédéric St-Jean
Counsel for the Respondent:
Stéphanie Côté
Julie David
____________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
The appeal under subsection 103(1) of the Employment Insurance Act is dismissed and the decision of the Minister of National Revenue is confirmed in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 2nd day of December 2005.
"Alain Tardif"
Tardif J.
Translation certified true
on this 19th day of June 2008.
Brian McCordick, Translator
Dockets: 2004-3742(EI)
2004-3743(EI)
BETWEEN:
MARIO OUELLET,
Appellant,
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent.
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
____________________________________________________________________
Appeals heard from May 16 to 19, 2005, at Rivière-du-Loup, Quebec
Before: The Honourable Justice Alain Tardif
Appearances:
Counsel for the Appellant:
Frédéric St-Jean
Counsel for the Respondent:
Stéphanie Côté
Julie David
____________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
The appeals under subsection 103(1) of the Employment Insurance Act are dismissed and the decisions of the Minister of National Revenue are confirmed in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 2nd day of December 2005.
"Alain Tardif"
Tardif J.
Translation certified true
on this 19th day of June 2008.
Brian McCordick, Translator
Docket: 2004-3741(EI)
BETWEEN:
SYLVAIN OUELLET,
Appellant,
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent.
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
____________________________________________________________________
Appeal heard from May 16 to 19, 2005, at Rivière-du-Loup, Quebec
Before: The Honourable Justice Alain Tardif
Appearances:
Counsel for the Appellant:
Frédéric St-Jean
Counsel for the Respondent:
Stéphanie Côté
Julie David
____________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
The appeal under subsection 103(1) of the Employment Insurance Act is dismissed and the decision of the Minister of National Revenue is confirmed in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 2nd day of December 2005.
"Alain Tardif"
Tardif J.
Translation certified true
on this 19th day of June 2008.
Brian McCordick, Translator
Dockets: 2004-3739(EI)
2004-3740(EI)
BETWEEN:
PAUL SOUCY,
Appellant,
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent.
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
____________________________________________________________________
Appeals heard from May 16 to 19, 2005, at Rivière-du-Loup, Quebec
Before: The Honourable Justice Alain Tardif
Appearances:
Counsel for the Appellant:
Frédéric St-Jean
Counsel for the Respondent:
Stéphanie Côté
Julie David
____________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
The appeals under subsection 103(1) of the Employment Insurance Act are dismissed and the decisions of the Minister of National Revenue are confirmed in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 2nd day of December 2005.
"Alain Tardif"
Tardif J.
Translation certified true
on this 19th day of June 2008.
Brian McCordick, Translator
Docket: 2004-3738(EI)
BETWEEN:
CHANTAL THÉRIAULT,
Appellant,
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent.
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
____________________________________________________________________
Appeal heard from May 16 to 19, 2005, at Rivière-du-Loup, Quebec
Before: The Honourable Justice Alain Tardif
Appearances:
Counsel for the Appellant:
Frédéric St-Jean
Counsel for the Respondent:
Stéphanie Côté
Julie David
____________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
The appeal under subsection 103(1) of the Employment Insurance Act is dismissed and the decision of the Minister of National Revenue is confirmed in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 2nd day of December 2005.
"Alain Tardif"
Tardif J.
Translation certified true
on this 19th day of June 2008.
Brian McCordick, Translator
Docket: 2004-3737(EI)
BETWEEN:
SERGE THÉRIAULT,
Appellant,
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent.
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
____________________________________________________________________
Appeal heard from May 16 to 19, 2005, at Rivière-du-Loup, Quebec
Before: The Honourable Justice Alain Tardif
Appearances:
Counsel for the Appellant:
Frédéric St-Jean
Counsel for the Respondent:
Stéphanie Côté
Julie David
____________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
The appeal under subsection 103(1) of the Employment Insurance Act is dismissed and the decision of the Minister of National Revenue is confirmed in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 2nd day of December 2005.
"Alain Tardif"
Tardif J.
Translation certified true
on this 19th day of June 2008.
Brian McCordick, Translator
Citation: 2005TCC652
Date: 20051202
Dockets: 2004-3735(EI), 2004-3736(EI), 2004-3737(EI), 2004-3738(EI), 2004‑3739(EI), 2004‑3740(EI), 2004-3741(EI), 2004-3742(EI), 2004‑3743(EI), 2004‑3744(EI), 2004‑3745(EI), 2004-3746(EI), 2004‑3749(EI), 2004‑3750(EI), 2004‑3751(EI), 2004-3752(EI), 2004‑3753(EI), 2004‑3754(EI), 2004-3756(EI), 2004‑3760(EI), 2004‑3761(EI), 2004-3763(EI), 2004-3764(EI), 2004-3765(EI), 2004‑3766(EI), 2004-3767(EI), 2004-3769(EI), 2004-3770(EI), 2004‑3771(EI), 2004-3772(EI), 2004-3773(EI), 2004-3774(EI)
and 2004‑3775(EI)
BETWEEN:
JEAN-MARIE DUBÉ, FERME JALNA INC.,
SERGE THÉRIAULT, CHANTAL THÉRIAULT, PAUL SOUCY,
SYLVAIN OUELLET, MARIO OUELLET, FRANCIS OUELLET, DENIS OUELLET, JULIE LORD, CLAUDETTE MICHAUD,
BERTRAND OUELLET, BRIGITTE LORD, MAURICE LÉVESQUE, DANIEL LAVOIE, JOSEPH CHASSÉ, DANIEL DUBÉ, GUILDO DUBÉ,
BRUNO DIONNE, DANY DUBÉ, SERGE DIONNE
and GHISLAIN CHASSÉ,
Appellants,
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent.
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Tardif J.
[1] In these many appeals, all of the Appellants agreed to proceed on common evidence.
[2] During the periods in issue, the payor operated a very large sugar bush with more than 100,000 taps at three different sites.
[3] The maple trees were in three different locations identified as Pic de sable, Petit Canada and Rang 7; each location had about the same number of maple trees.
[4] The three locations covered a distance of about 15 kilometres. The location described as Rang 7 was distinctive in that the ground there was the most uneven; there were significant differences in its level.
[5] Each of the three locations had its own maple sap collection centre. Certain operations took place there, but the finished product was made at only one place; the collected maple sap, whether in its raw state or after being processed by osmosis, therefore had to be transported to complete all the steps, or part of them, before becoming the finished product, maple syrup.
[6] The sap was transported from one place to another in a tank truck driven by Jean‑Marie Dubé. This was an industrial production process; the finished product was placed in 45‑gallon barrels and then sold.
[7] Starting in 1997, the business expanded rapidly and significantly. It went from 56,000 taps in 1997 to 88,600 in 1999 and 111,000 in 2000.
[8] All of the appeals relate to the number of hours of work performed in operating this huge sugar bush. In three cases, namely those of Chantal Thériault (2004‑3738(EI)), Joseph Chassé (2004‑3764(EI)) and Claudette Michaud (2004‑3750(EI)), the Respondent determined that the records of employment were convenience records because, in his view, the Appellants had not done any work for the payor. In all the other cases, the issue is whether the number of insurable hours of work is the number shown on the records of employment or the number calculated by the Respondent, a calculation vigorously contested by the Appellants.
[9] The work for which the number of hours is contested in the appeals was performed for Jean‑Marie Dubé, Ferme Jalna Inc., also an Appellant, or both of them.
[10] To make the judgment easier to read, the Court will use the expression “the payor” to refer to Jean‑Marie Dubé and Ferme Jalna Inc., since Mr. Dubé was the employer during some periods and the company was the employer during other periods. Mr. Dubé owned 49 percent of the company's voting shares; Marcelle Dionne, his spouse, owned 49 percent and Stéphane Dubé owned 2 percent.
[11] All of the Appellants testified except Serge Thériault, Maurice Lévesque and Claudette Michaud. In addition to the Appellants' testimony, the evidence consisted of the testimony of Marcelle Dionne, secretary, Éric Garon, Pascal Lord, Donald Beaulieu, agricultural consultant (expert witness), Benoit Michaud, Serge Picard, Alain Landry, Yvan Harton, Daniel Michaud (investigator), Réginald Côté (interpretation officer) and Guy Savard (major investigation officer). Daniel Michaud and Guy Savard testified as investigators.
[12] The periods in issue were described very clearly in a well‑constructed table showing the names of all the Appellant workers whose number of hours of work had been revised (Exhibit A‑4). That table reproduced, in a very accessible manner, the information about the work periods found in the records of employment and made it possible to see that information quickly.
[13] At the three places where the maple trees were located, a network of tubes connected all the taps so the maple sap could flow through small pipes to a central collection site; that type of network of PVC tubes is commonly referred to as "tubing".
[14] Jean‑Marie Dubé, who ran the business during all the periods in issue, briefly explained and described the work requirements for such a business. He was very wary and uncooperative; I had to intervene several times to obtain answers that were rarely clear and explicit.
[15] Generally speaking, the work in which the Appellants were involved was carried out in the order described below. The trees were usually tapped in January using gas‑powered tappers; each tap was then connected to the network of tubes that ultimately carried the maple sap to tanks adjacent to a sugar shack, where certain operations to concentrate the sap took place. The maple sap could also simply be directed to tanks and then collected by a tank truck, delivered and processed to its final state at the main facility, which produced maple syrup that was ready to be sold.
[16] Tapping the maple trees could take a few weeks. Preferably, everything had to be finished by the date the maple sap started flowing, which could not be predicted and which could vary from one year to the next.
[17] While the maple trees were being tapped, some workers could be assigned to clear the pipes of snow and branches that had fallen in bad weather. Some breaks had to be repaired, and parts of pipes occasionally had to be replaced. Other networks of pipes could be added from time to time if new maple trees that had become tappable were used.
[18] When the work done in this type of business was described, much was also said about the repair of leaks caused largely by squirrels.
[19] Along with the tapping, cleaning and repair work, it was necessary to prepare the places where the maple sap was boiled so it could ultimately become maple syrup; finally, the pipes, equipment and buildings used to make the maple syrup had to be cleaned. All these activities normally lasted from mid‑January to mid‑May.
[20] Jean‑Marie Dubé provided a rather confused explanation of how he had managed the business. To explain and justify the fact that he had no information about the start and end of the employees' work periods even though there had been very many employees and both their hours and their days of work had been discontinuous, he stated that he loathed all paperwork.
[21] Despite the obvious difficulty of knowing who had done what and when, Mr. Dubé could not explain how he had been able to complete all the records of employment challenged by the Respondent except by stating repeatedly that he had fully trusted the workers to record their hours of work. Despite many questions, he never provided any reliable information or details about this fundamental aspect of the cases.
[22] He did not control or verify the hours of work. He repeated that employees must be trusted. The employees indicated the number of hours they had worked, and his wife prepared the corresponding cheque. In principle, they worked or were supposed to work 45 hours a week.
[23] Since he was clearly always on the defensive, he answered only the questions he considered valid. He gave confused and very vague answers to the other questions.
[24] In other words, Mr. Dubé had little to say, was deliberately hesitant and was often very vague. At times, he refused to answer or gave answers that had nothing to do with the questions. His hesitation, reticence and discomfort were due not to nervousness but to his obvious determination to say only what he wanted to say.
[25] In response to the many questions about his knowledge of the work descriptions of the persons who had been issued records of employment, he referred to the periods of employment and provided a description based on the work that had to be done during the various stages of producing maple syrup. Although some of the work required a certain level of skill, he was never able to clearly say who had done what.
[26] When it became difficult to explain or describe in detail the nature of the work performed, he relied on an all‑purpose answer, namely that there was always work to be done in a sugar bush as large as the one he ran.
[27] For the most part, Mr. Dubé's testimony did not provide any details or concrete information about the way the Appellants' hours of work had been recorded. He basically stated that they had worked exactly the number of hours shown on the records of employment issued to them.
[28] He constantly repeated that he had had no system or records and had trusted his employees, even though he acknowledged that work had not been performed continuously because of the great variations in weather; intense cold and storms were some of the constraints with which they had to deal, along with the fact that the sap flow varied from none to very heavy.
The Appellants each testified in turn
Francis Ouellet
[29] A well‑built man, he was obviously not the type to give in to anyone. He was always in perfect control of the situation. He flatly and firmly denied making certain statements in the interviews conducted during the investigations, thus suggesting that the investigator who had written everything down had made up certain passages.
[30] Following the periods in issue, he and a certain Nelson Dubé became co‑owners of the company that operates the sugar bush. He testified that Jean‑Marie Dubé was a very good friend with whom he went hunting. He also stated that, had it not been for his cooperation, he could never have become the owner of the sugar bush with Nelson Dubé.
[31] He admitted that he had provided services without pay to the business run by Jean‑Marie Dubé. Disputing this would have been difficult, since his signature was on several invoices the dates of which corresponded to periods when he was receiving employment insurance benefits.
[32] With regard to a cheque received from Jean‑Marie Dubé, he explained that it was a loan made to him by Mr. Dubé. He also admitted that the end dates for two work periods were not consistent with the nature of the business or the type of work done; he explained these inconsistencies by referring to illness and the birth of a third child.
[33] He also admitted that his return to work might have coincided with the time when his employment insurance benefits ran out. Following the interview with the investigators, he agreed to sign his statutory declaration after making changes to it, which he initialled. Finally, he firmly denied taking part in an hour‑banking system.
Daniel Dubé
[34] He refused to sign the record of his explanations prepared by the investigators who questioned him during the investigation.
[35] He also denied participating in an hour‑banking system. He explained that one of his work periods had ended because of a family separation.
[36] Like his coworker Francis Ouellet, he admitted providing services without pay while receiving employment insurance benefits after the evidence showed that his signature appeared on several invoices.
[37] In reply to questions from his counsel, he downplayed the significance of the unpaid work he had done while on employment insurance. Finally, he said that, in the area, it was normal, customary and legitimate for people to help one another for free.
Bruno Dionne
[38] Bruno Dionne, Jean‑Marie Dubé's brother‑in‑law and a painter by trade, testified that he did his painting work as an independent contractor or self‑employed worker. His testimony about the work done for the payor's business was marked by total confusion and great forgetfulness.
[39] Several of his explanations were totally incoherent. He stated several times that he did not understand the questions, that some of his previous statements meant nothing and that he could have said anything because he forgot everything after each season.
Brigitte Lord
[40] During the sugaring-off season, the Appellant moved into one of the shacks where the osmosis took place. She took part in the initial operations that were to lead to the finished product; this was one of her main tasks.
[41] Like all the others, she said that she had always worked 45 hours a week, never less, never more. She stated that she had also cut down trees, picked up rocks and been responsible for the osmosis.
[42] She said that she had lived on site and been busy with the initial operations involved in processing the maple sap. When her 45 hours were done, she immediately stopped working; someone came to replace her, no matter when this happened. When asked exactly what work she had done, she stated and repeated that [translation] "It depended on what work had to be done"; Jean‑Marie Dubé was the one who decided.
[43] She could not specify her hours of work each day, adding that Jean‑Marie Dubé had looked after this. Like others, she claimed that she did not understand certain questions. To explain certain ambiguities, she said that she did not remember and that there might have been some inconsistencies, which, she said, could be explained by her great nervousness. To explain the contradictions, she said that she had been mistaken.
[44] She also stated that Jean‑Marie Dubé had recorded her hours of work. This was surprising, since Mr. Dubé had clearly and expressly stated during his testimony that he had trusted his employees to calculate their hours of work.
Julie Lord
[45] Ms. Lord, the spouse of the Appellant worker Ghislain Chassé, testified that she had tapped maple trees, plugged leaks, made preparations for the osmosis processing and cleaned up after the season was over. She avoided looking me in the eye; her testimony was sprinkled with words such as [translation] "maybe; that can happen; it depended; I don't understand the question".
[46] During conversations or interviews at the time of the investigation, she did not remember working during a certain period in the fall and thus outside the sugaring-off season.
[47] She stated that she did not know what work her spouse Ghislain Chassé had done for the sugar bush, where he had worked or even whether he had worked. To explain why she had been absent in the middle of the busy period, she simply stated that it must no doubt have been too cold.
Daniel Lavoie
[48] Mr. Lavoie stated that he was now a longshoreman after working for many years as a maple worker for several different sugar bush owners.
[49] Saying that he did not know how to read or write, he testified that he had done all the various works except those related to cleaning at the end of the season. Since he had considerable expertise, he showed various employees how to do the work needed to operate a sugar bush.
[50] There were many contradictions between his testimony and the answers he had given in interviews conducted during the investigation.
[51] He testified that he had been intimidated and very uncomfortable during the investigation, which, he said, explained the contradictions. At one point, he said that he had not put his hand on the bible when making the declarations, so his explanations might not be true.
[52] With regard to what he had said during a conference call with several participants, he testified that things had gone strangely.
[53] He admitted that he had provided services without pay during periods when he was receiving employment insurance benefits: in this regard, several invoices with his signature on them were filed in evidence.
[54] He described Jean‑Marie Dubé as an extremely generous man who was very uncompromising when calculating his employees' hours of work. He even gave an example to illustrate Mr. Dubé's firmness and rigour in order to show that Mr. Dubé had been adamant about the accuracy of the hours of work for which he paid his employees.
[55] Thus, he totally contradicted the testimony of Jean‑Marie Dubé, who had repeatedly stated that he had trusted his employees completely with regard to their hours of work and that they had not kept any records to prove those hours. If the work had been performed regularly and continuously for nine hours a day over periods of five days, this might have been more understandable, but the reality was very different.
[56] Mr. Dubé's rigour and firmness in managing his business, as described by Daniel Lavoie, are not really consistent with having no records or other documents to control his many employees' hours of work.
[57] The Appellant also stated that the start and end dates of the work periods had been determined by whether or not employment insurance benefits could be received. At all times during his testimony, he had his hand on the bible.
Sylvain Ouellet
[58] The Appellant stated that he generally worked at a sawmill and that the period at issue was the first time he had had a paying job at a sugar bush; he had no experience and little knowledge in that field except from hearing about it and from seeing a few times how the work was done in a small sugar bush owned by a relative.
[59] Despite his lack of experience, he maintained that he had always worked alone and had not seen anyone in the area where he was working. He stated that he had tapped maple trees and plugged leaks.
[60] He also testified that he had worked only 45 hours a week. He worked more some days than others; he worked up to 18 hours some days when, according to him, it was still light outside.
[61] With regard to the tapping period, that is, the time when that work began and ended, the Court was treated to explanations that were vague, confused and totally implausible coming from someone who had worked alone his first and only time at a sugar bush.
[62] The difficulty of situating work that is done every year for several years may account for certain problems in remembering exactly what was done each year, especially since, thanks to Mother Nature, the work may be done at different times. This is not the case for the tapping period, which cannot vary much, since no one can predict when the sap will start to flow; thus, sugar bush owners do not want to take the chance of not being ready when the sap first starts to flow. The tapping period, especially in a very large sugar bush, must therefore be the same every year.
Denis Ouellet
[63] The Appellant Denis Ouellet, aged 58, described himself as a logger who had several strings to his bow, including mechanics.
[64] During all of the periods in issue, the Appellant mainly did forestry work. He testified that he had done very little work at the sugar bush except in one of the buildings commonly called "sugar shacks".
[65] That work was rather indirect; he prepared the places where the maple trees were located by doing various types of cleaning and thinning‑out work. He first stated that he had never worked without pay and had worked 45 hours a week, never more, never less.
[66] After stressing the regularity of his hours of work, in keeping with the various records of employment, he admitted that he had run many errands for Jean‑Marie Dubé; this was established by his recognition of his signature on eight invoices from 1997, eleven from 1999 and twenty from 2000 and 2001.
[67] A large number of those invoices were for the purchase of mechanical parts, and several of them were for the purchase of many items. All the invoices were signed during periods when the Appellant was receiving employment insurance benefits. When the Court asked him whether he had used his mechanical skills for the payor, the Appellant answered that Jean‑Marie Dubé himself had done the mechanical work on his many vehicles (snowmobile, skidder, trucks, tractors and so on).
[68] He could not provide any explanation whatsoever for any of the 39 invoices; the only thing he said about them was that he recognized his signature.
Mario Ouellet
[69] The Appellant described himself as a trucke