Alban Garon

The appellant employer received tips from customers at banquets and distributed them to its employees pursuant to a collective agreement.

The Minister of National Revenue assessed the employer for unemployment insurance premiums on these tips.

The employer appealed, arguing that the tips were paid by customers, not the employer, and thus were not remuneration under section 68 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that section 66 of the Act requires premiums to be calculated based on 'insurable earnings', which includes tips distributed by the employer.

The appeal was dismissed.

The respondents sold a plot of land containing apartment buildings for $5,850,000, allocating $5,100,000 to the land and $750,000 to the buildings and equipment.

The Minister of National Revenue reassessed the allocation under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, adding recaptured capital cost allowances to the respondents' incomes.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that section 68 does not apply to a transaction involving only the disposition of property, as it requires the disposition of property and 'something else' other than property.

The appeal was dismissed, and the parties' original allocation was upheld.

The appellant, in operating its open pit mine, purchased peripheral land to maintain the necessary wall slope and angle of repose.

The land did not overlay any ore body and was gradually consumed as the mine deepened.

The Minister assessed the land purchases as capital expenditures.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the expenditures were incurred in the regular day-to-day business operations to avoid a shutdown, were not part of a plan for assembling assets, and should be allocated to the revenue account as deductible expenses.

The appellant lost his employment due to a work stoppage and subsequently found full-time secondary employment, from which he was later laid off.

His claim for unemployment benefits was initially rejected.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed his appeal, following its concurrent decision in Abrahams v. Attorney General of Canada regarding the interpretation of 'regularly engaged in some other occupation' under section 44(1)(c) of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971.

The appellant lost his employment due to a strike and subsequently found secondary employment working three days a week at a hospital.

He left the hospital job for medical reasons and applied for unemployment insurance benefits.

The Commission denied benefits under s. 44(1) of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, arguing he was not 'regularly engaged in some other occupation' because he intended to return to his original employer after the strike.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that 'regularly engaged' refers to the regularity of the work schedule, not the duration or permanence of the employment.

The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was entitled to benefits.