Docket: A-378-97
CORAM: DENAULT F.C.F.
DESJARDINS J.A.
CHEVALIER D.J.
BETWEEN: JEAN HADDAD
Applicant
AND:
MINISTRY OF NATIONAL REVENUE
Respondent
AND:
ELECTROLUX CORPORATION OF
CANADA INC.
Intervenor
Heard at Montreal on Friday, March 20, 1998
Judgment rendered from the Bench on March 20, 1998
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
OF THE COURT DELIVERED BY: DESJARDINS J.A.
Date: 19980320
Docket: A-378-97
CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DENAULT
THE HONOURABLE MADAME JUSTICE DESJARDINS
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEVALIER
BETWEEN:
JEAN HADDAD
Applicant
AND:
MINISTRY OF NATIONAL REVENUE
Respondent
AND:
ELECTROLUX CORPORATION OF CANADA INC.
Intervenor
REASONS OF JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Rendered from the Bench at Montreal on
Friday, March 20, 1998)
DESJARDINS J. A.
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Tax Court of Canada which affirmed the Minister's determination that the applicant's employment with Electrolux Corporation of Canada Inc. during the period of June 3, 1994 to May 10, 1995 was not insurable because there was no employee/employer relationship between the applicant and his employer, pursuant to paragraph 3(1)a) of the Unemployment Insurance Act.
[2] The applicant signed a "Dealer Agreement" with Electrolux on June 3, 1994, the details of which were summarized by the Tax Court Judge in the following manner :
| First, I would point out that the appellant signed a "Dealer Agreement" with Electrolux on June 3, 1994. This agreement sets out the terms and conditions of the relationship between the parties and the other conditions respecting the sale of Electrolux products by the dealer, who is described therein as a non-exclusive independent contractor, not as an employee of Electrolux. In particular, it provides that Electrolux neither has nor reserves any right to exercise any direction, control or determination over the methods of the dealer's activities, although it does reserve the right to review sales results and to terminate the contract if those results are unsatisfactory. It also states that the dealer is remunerated exclusively on a commission basis, without any social benefits, that he must obtain the permits and licences he needs at his own expense and that he must personally pay sales-related costs and expenses. Electrolux's products for sale are provided to him on consignment only and the dealer himself must buy insurance covering their value. |
[3] The applicant testified that when he signed the agreement with Electrolux, he asked the manager of the Pierrefonds Centre, to whom he reported, whether he could be paid a fixed amount of $300, then $400, per week to ensure he has a regular income. This was agreed to, conditionnally, for a period of three months. The applicant also stated that he was given the title of assistant manager and that he was asked to train a new person, after having made only 35 sales while the normal amount of sales for such request was usually after 50 sales.
[4] The applicant argued before us that the Tax Court Judge erred when he concluded that the applicant's role and remuneration during the first months did not change his status of independent contractor. The applicant claims that this special arrangement changed his status to that of an employee under a contract of service.
[5] We are all of the view that the Tax Court Judge did not err in doing so. These changes did not alter the autonomous character of the applicant's employment. Such character was correctly determined by the Tax Court Judge according to the criteria developed by this Court in Wiebe Door Services Ltd v. M.N.R., [1986] 3 F.C. 553, a copy of which was also brought to our attention by the applicant in filing his authorities.
[6] This application for judicial review will therefore be dismissed.
Alice Desjardins
J.A.
MONTREAL, QUEBEC
March 20, 1998
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
Date: 19980320
Docket: A-378-97
BETWEEN:
JEAN HADDAD
Applicant
AND:
MINISTRY OF NATIONAL REVENUE
Respondent
AND:
ELECTROLUX CORPORATION OF
CANADA INC.
Intervenor
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
APPEAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT NUMBER: A-378-97
BETWEEN: JEAN HADDAD
Applicant
AND:
MINISTRY OF NATIONAL REVENUE
Respondent
AND:
ELECTROLUX CORPORATION OF
CANADA INC.
Intervenor
PLACE OF HEARING: Montreal (Quebec)
DATE OF HEARING: March 20, 1998
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (DENAULT F.C.J., DESJARDINS J.A., AND CHEVALIER D.J.A.)
RENDERED FROM THE BENCH BY: DESJARDINS J.A.
DATED: March 20, 1998
- 2 -
APPEARANCES:
| Mr. Jean Haddad for the Applicant |
| Me Sylvie Gadoury for the Respondent |
Me Douglas Tees for the Intervenor
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Mr. Jean Haddad for the Applicant
St-Laurent, Quebec
George Thomson for the Respondent
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
OGILVY RENAULT for the Intervenor
Montreal, Quebec