EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Appeals from Tax Court of Canada (T.C.C.) judgments confirming Minister of National Revenue decisions appellants not holding insurable employment within meaning of Employment Insurance Act, S.C. 1996, c. 23, s. 5(1)(a), as appellants not dealing with payer at arm’s length, contrary to s. 5(2)(i), and would not have entered into contract of service if had been dealing with payer at arm’s length, contrary to s. 5(3)(b)—T.C.C. taking unpaid work performed by appellants into account when determining insurability of employment—Three factors essential for purposes of s. 5(2)(i) when analyzing impact of unpaid work between related persons: nature, number and frequency of duties performed—The more similar duties performed at no charge are to those described under contract for paid work and the higher their number and frequency, the less likely and reasonable it becomes to conclude employer and employee “would have entered into a substantially similar contract of employment if they had been dealing with each other at arm’s length” (s. 5(3)(b))—Here, during alleged period of unemployment, appellants performing identical duties to paid duties under contract of employment—Appellants’ employment had to be excluded—Appeals dismissed.
Dumais v. M.N.R. (A-410-07, A-411-07, 2008 FCA 301, Létourneau J.A., judgment dated October 8, 2008, 16 pp.)