Appellant sought revision of Minister’s decision that dismissed application for employment insurance. Minister affirmed that appellant was not employee for concerned corporation and worked as autonomous throughout his contract. Appellant claimed that employee status was not mentioned in job offer letter but was discussed personally with representatives of corporation. Appellant affirmed that activities were supervised and that corporation exercised control over him. Appeal not allowed. Absence of fixed working hours, control over appellant’s work and great flexibility to perform activity confirmed appellant’s status of self-employed. Court underscored that nature of contract, establishing prospective gains and losses, confirmed that appellant was autonomous.
Watzke v. M.N.R.
(July 15, 2011, T.C.C., Miller J., File No. 2010-2371(EI); 2010-2372(CPP)) Reasons in French. 205 A.C.W.S. (3d) 980 (8 pp.).