http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/180004/index.do
Stuckless v. M.N.R. (September 2, 2016 – 2016 TCC 191, V. Miller J.).
Précis: Mr. Stuckless was a bricklayer for 16 years. He incorporated a company of which he owned 20% of the shares and his spouse and father each owned 40% of the shares. His evidence was that he thought that the use of the corporation would allow him to claim EI benefits when necessary. CRA denied his claim for EI benefits and he appealed to the Tax Court. The Court held that he was not engaged in employment similar to arm’s length employment and dismissed his appeal. There was no order as to costs.
Decision: This decision boils down to the two final paragraphs:
[20] It is my view that the Appellant made all of the decisions for the Payer. He decided when he would work; his own rate of pay; the quotes issued by the Payer; the contracts which the Payer would accept; the days and hours he would work; and the casual laborers who would be hired and laid off by the Payer. The Appellant decided the direction of the Payer’s business. It is my opinion that the Appellant incorporated the Payer to give the appearance that he was employed by an independent third party.
[21] There is no basis for me to conclude that the Minister’s decision would have been different if he had the benefit of the evidence given before me. The appeal is dismissed.
The appeal was dismissed. There was no order as to costs.