Tax court of Canada | Employment Insurance
Contributions
“Placement or employment agency” in Employment Insurance Act (Can.) given same meaning as in s. 34(1) of Canada Pension Plan Regulations
Appellant corporation was in business of providing various social services workers to temporarily work with group homes, schools and families to temporarily so clients could meet their staffing needs. Workers were paid by corporation based on set hourly amount without regard to what corporation was paid by its clients, and did not pay fee to corporation. Ruling was made under Employment Insurance Act (Can.) that one of corporation’s workers was engaged in insurable employment on basis that corporation was “placement or employment agency.” Corporation appealed. Appeal dismissed. Although there was no definition of “placement or employment agency” in Act or its regulations, it was given same meaning as in s. 34(1) of Canada Pension Plan Regulations. Accordingly, corporation’s argument, that it was not placement or employment agency because it was not paid fee by its workers, failed. With exception of lack of fixed hours, and of right of corporation to assign work hours to worker, corporation’s control over its workers, which included control of worker by corporation’s clients, was consistent with terms of employment under contract of service. Corporation placed its worker with its clients to provide services to them, corporation paid worker for her services, and worker performed those services under clients’ direction and control, so appeal was dismissed.
Wholistic Child and Family Services Inc. v. Minister of National Revenue (Feb. 9, 2016, T.C.C. [Employment Insurance], Patrick Boyle J., 2014-2870(EI), 2014-2871(CPP)) 263 A.C.W.S. (3d) 232.
“Placement or employment agency” in Employment Insurance Act (Can.) given same meaning as in s. 34(1) of Canada Pension Plan Regulations
Appellant corporation was in business of providing various social services workers to temporarily work with group homes, schools and families to temporarily so clients could meet their staffing needs. Workers were paid by corporation based on set hourly amount without regard to what corporation was paid by its clients, and did not pay fee to corporation. Ruling was made under Employment Insurance Act (Can.) that one of corporation’s workers was engaged in insurable employment on basis that corporation was “placement or employment agency.” Corporation appealed. Appeal dismissed. Although there was no definition of “placement or employment agency” in Act or its regulations, it was given same meaning as in s. 34(1) of Canada Pension Plan Regulations. Accordingly, corporation’s argument, that it was not placement or employment agency because it was not paid fee by its workers, failed. With exception of lack of fixed hours, and of right of corporation to assign work hours to worker, corporation’s control over its workers, which included control of worker by corporation’s clients, was consistent with terms of employment under contract of service. Corporation placed its worker with its clients to provide services to them, corporation paid worker for her services, and worker performed those services under clients’ direction and control, so appeal was dismissed.
Wholistic Child and Family Services Inc. v. Minister of National Revenue (Feb. 9, 2016, T.C.C. [Employment Insurance], Patrick Boyle J., 2014-2870(EI), 2014-2871(CPP)) 263 A.C.W.S. (3d) 232.
