Legal Wit — Paid to go Away ≠ Employment

Legal Wit — Paid to go Away ≠ Employment
These appeals are from assessments made under the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Pension Plan whereby the Minister of National Revenue assessed the appellant for Canada Pension Plan contributions and employment insurance premiums in respect of a number of individuals whose services the appellant retained as painters from time to time for specific jobs. The issue is whether the individuals were engaged under contracts of service or contracts for services or, in the phrase that is more commonly and colloquially used, whether they were employees or independent contractors …

There was one final person, an artist by the name of Martin who turned up, to use Mr. Coles' terminology, "higher than a kite". Mr. Coles paid him $50 to go away. I doubt that he fell within either category. Although he was obviously independent, perhaps unduly so, he was scarcely a contractor. He was, rather, merely a free spirit of short passage.

825209 Alberta Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue

2005 CarswellNat 290

Tax Court of Canada

© Copyright Westlaw Canada, Thomson Reuters Canada Limited. All rights reserved.