|
Pensions - CPP - Determining Employment Status. Whelan v. Canada
In Whelan v. Canada (Fed CA, 2025) the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed Tax Court appeals, here from "determinations made by the Minister of National Revenue that Ms. Whelan operated a placement agency and that the individual workers were in pensionable and insurable employment within the meaning of the Canada Pension Plan, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-8 and the Employment Insurance Act".
This extracts illustrates how the federal Ministry of National Revenue can make determinations regarding the employment status of workers:[1] This is a consolidated appeal of two judgments of the Tax Court of Canada in files 2020-2288 (CPP) and 2020-2289 (EI). In reasons for judgment delivered orally on October 19, 2023, the Tax Court dismissed Ms. Whelan’s appeals and confirmed the determinations made by the Minister of National Revenue that Ms. Whelan operated a placement agency and that the individual workers were in pensionable and insurable employment within the meaning of the Canada Pension Plan, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-8 and the Employment Insurance Act, S.C. 1996, c. 23 and their corresponding regulations (subsections 34(1) and (2) of the Canada Pension Plan Regulations, C.R.C., c. 385 and paragraph 6(g) of the Employment Insurance Regulations, S.O.R./96-332).
....
[3] Ms. Whelan raises several grounds of appeal. However, after reviewing the record and considering the submissions of counsel, we are all of the view that the Tax Court made no reviewable error that warrants intervention. While the reasons for judgment could have been undoubtedly more clearly expressed, we are satisfied that the Tax Court applied the correct legal principles for determining whether the workers were engaged in pensionable and insurable employment (European Staffing Inc. v. Canada (National Revenue), 2020 FCA 219; 1392644 Ontario Inc. (Connor Homes) v. Canada (National Revenue), 2013 FCA 85; Wiebe Door Services Ltd. v. M.N.R. (F.C.A.), [1986] 3 F.C. 553, 1986 CanLII 6775, approved in 671122 Ontario Ltd. v. Sagaz Industries Canada Inc., 2001 SCC 59).
|
