Tax Court of Canada

Public Law

Social programs

Employment insurance

Individual found not to be engaged in pensionable and insurable employment while operating fish market
Payer was sole proprietorship operating in fishing industry as buyer and seller of lobster and crab –Payer and individual were not related. Individual operated his own fish market from his yard, selling lobsters and clams. Individual was competitor of payer. Minister informed individual that from April 25 to April 29, 2011, individual was employed by payer under contract of service and was engaged in pensionable and insurable employment in respect of which he had 40 insurable hours and $600 of insurable earnings, and that for contested periods, individual was not employed by payer and not engaged in pensionable and employable insurance. Individual appealed. Appeal dismissed. Payer’s activities as employer began in 2009 and at that time, payer was suspected and ultimately convicted of issuing falsified records of employment for purpose of qualifying individuals for employment insurance benefits they were not entitled to receive. Individual was not employed by payer during contested periods. Individual’s answers were evasive as to duties performed for payer during contested periods. He called no witnesses to corroborate allegation that he was employed by payer during contested periods. Negative inference was drawn from fact that payer did have actual employees during contested periods and none of these employees were called as witnesses to confirm testimony. Individual appeared to suffer from convenient memory lapses. Individual was not credible or reliable witness.
Doucet v. M.N.R. (2017), 2017 CarswellNat 2602, 2017 TCC 102, Robert J. Hogan J. (T.C.C. [Employment Insurance]).
cover image


Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll

Law Times reports that there is no explicit rule that lawyers in Ontario must be competent in the use of technology. Do you think there should be explicit rules spelling out the expectations of lawyers’ in terms of tech use in their practice?