Morris Meadows offered meeting facilities, sleeping
facilities and dining facilities. In doing so it hired workers, as
required, to perform certain duties such as cleaning, gardening,
maintenance, cooking and serving food.
The CRA classified the workers as employees, and assessed the
taxpayer for additional CPP contributions and EI premiums. The
taxpayer appealed on the basis that the workers were (i)
independent contractors or (ii) casual employees not employed
for the purposes of Morris Meadows' business.
In respect of the evidence, the Tax Court made this comment on a
 Mr. Morris, the moving force
behind Morris Meadows, was the only witness for the Appellant. He
was refreshingly forthright in his testimony to the point of
offering me work as a cook at Morris Meadows. I declined the
In the present case, the Court held there was no written
agreement expressing intent and thus no mutual intent (as per the
Connor Homes analysis). The Court then pursued the
traditional Sagaz/Wiebe Door analysis to determine
whether the workers performed their services in business on their
own account. On this point, the Court concluded that all but one of
the workers were employees.
On the issue of whether the workers were engaged
in employment of a casual nature other than for the purpose of
the employer's trade or business (see subsection 5(2) of the
Employment Insurance Act and subsection 6(2) of the
Canada Pension Plan), the Tax Court cited the Federal
Court of Appeal's decision in Roussy v Minister of National
Revenue ( F.C.J. No. 913), which stated:
 ... the duration of the time a
person works is not conclusive in categorizing employment as
casual; the length of time may be a factor to be considered, but a
more important aspect is whether the employment is
"ephemeral" or "transitory" or, if you will,
unpredictable and unreliable. It must be impossible to determine
its regularity. In other words, if someone is spasmodically called
upon once in a while to do a bit of work for an indeterminate time,
that may be considered to be casual work. If, however, someone is
hired to work specified hours for a definite period or on a
particular project until it is completed, this is not casual, even
if the period is a short one.
The Tax Court held that the workers were engaged in
unpredictable "part-time" work rather than casual
employment. Further, the Court noted that Morris Meadows
advertised its dining facilities (available for business meetings
or weddings), hired workers to serve the food, and profited from
such commerce. In the Court's view, Morris Meadows was in a
business to which the employment related, and the casual employment
was for the purpose of Morris Meadows' business. The Court held
the workers were not engaged in casual employment for the purposes
of the EI Act and the CPP.
The Court allowed the appeals only in respect of the one worker
who was an independent contractor.
Dentons is a global firm driven to provide you with the
competitive edge in an increasingly complex and interconnected
marketplace. We were formed by the March 2013 combination of
international law firm Salans LLP, Canadian law firm Fraser Milner
Casgrain LLP (FMC) and international law firm SNR Denton.
Dentons is built on the solid foundations of three highly
regarded law firms. Each built its outstanding reputation and
valued clientele by responding to the local, regional and national
needs of a broad spectrum of clients of all sizes –
individuals; entrepreneurs; small businesses and start-ups; local,
regional and national governments and government agencies; and
mid-sized and larger private and public corporations, including
international and global entities.
Now clients benefit from more than 2,500 lawyers and
professionals in 79 locations in 52 countries across Africa, Asia
Pacific, Canada, Central Asia, Europe, the Middle East, Russia and
the CIS, the UK and the US who are committed to challenging the
status quo to offer creative, actionable business and legal
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances. Specific Questions relating to
this article should be addressed directly to the author.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
On Thursday, September 22, 2016, Dentons hosted a panel discussion about the management of liabilities and risks associated with environmental crises, including potential liabilities for directors and officers and provided insight into risk and liability techniques associated with environmental crisis management.
Unfortunately, reasonable accommodation for employees in the workplace continues to be the source of significant litigation and even today we continue to see outrageous examples of employers behaving badly.
We are now beginning to see reported cases involving charges and subsequent fines laid against employers for failing to provide information, instruction and supervision to protect a worker from workplace violence.
On October 13, 2016, the Supreme Court of Canada denied leave to appeal an Ontario Court of Appeal decision which ordered an employer to pay a former employee 37 months of salary and benefits following termination.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).