Worker’s employment was not ‘insurable’ as it was dependent on temporary work visa

Public Law - Social programs - Employment insurance

Worker worked under contract of employment with payer subsidiary of Netherlands corporation, which had business establishment in Massachusetts, USA, and maintained business presence in Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia. Worker was resident of Canada and maintained bank accounts, insurance policies, professional association dues and residence in Quebec, and filed income tax returns in Canada. Worker was covered by payer’s US pension and benefits plan, paid social security taxes in US dollars withheld from source, and paid state income and US federal taxes. Worker’s employment was terminated in July 2017 and worker returned to Canada. Worker’s claim for employment insurance was approved and he received total benefits of $16,410 for period from August 2017 to March 2018. Worker was informed by CPP/EI Division of Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) that his employment was not insurable and that he was required to reimburse benefits received. Worker application for unemployment benefits in state of Massachusetts was denied and then appeal from that decision was also denied. Minister of National Revenue confirmed ruling by CRA with respect to worker’s insurability under Employment Insurance Act for period from December 14, 2015 to July 31, 2017. Minister found that employment was excluded from insurable employment within meaning of s. 5(1)(a) of Act and ss. 5 and 7 of Employment Insurance Regulations. Worker appealed. Appeal allowed. There was no duplication in this instance, since worker was not required to make employment insurance contributions in Canada and there would be no duplication of benefits if he received them in Canada as worker was not entitled to such benefits in USA. Worker resided in Canada, payer had place of business in Canada and employment would be insurable if it were in Canada. Section 5(d) required that employment was not insurable employment under laws of country in which it took place. Worker’s employment with payer, dependent as it was on his temporary work visa, was not in fact “insurable employment” and fact that he was later denied benefits in state simply confirmed this.

Herta v. M.N.R. (2019), 2019 CarswellNat 1719, 2019 CarswellNat 1998, 2019 TCC 113, 2019 CCI 113, Guy R. Smith J. (T.C.C. [Employment Insurance]).

Case Law is a weekly summary of notable civil and criminal court decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Canada and all Ontario courts. These cases may be found online in WestlawNext Canada. To subscribe, please visit store.thomsonreuters.ca

Free newsletter

Our newsletter is FREE and keeps you up to date on all the developments in the Ontario legal community. Please enter your email address below to subscribe.

Recent articles & video

Federal Crowns to get payout from Phoenix pay system

Tax bar seeing more settlements in disputes with CRA

‘Polite’ Canadian idiom in lawyers’ emails adds confusion to jury notice snafu

‘Protect refugees and vulnerable populations,’ Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers urges Trudeau

U of T Law introduces the Black Future Lawyers Program

Halton courthouse to begin construction at the end of next year

Most Read Articles

Beware the end of the ‘sellers market’ in legal services, says panel

‘Polite’ Canadian idiom in lawyers’ emails adds confusion to jury notice snafu

When lawyers make mistakes, new rules consider rallying cries on mental health, sexual harassment

Halton courthouse to begin construction at the end of next year