The Appellant appealed a determination by the Minister of National Revenue that the Intervenor was in insurable employment.
The issue was whether the Intervenor and the Appellant were dealing at arm's length under paragraph 5(2)(i) of the Employment Insurance Act.
The Court found that the Intervenor, a shareholder and senior employee, participated in collective decision-making regarding remuneration and accepted terms not typical of an arm's length relationship, such as varying remuneration based on business performance and automatic termination upon ceasing to be a shareholder.
The Court concluded they were not dealing at arm's length, allowed the appeal, and varied the Minister's decision to reflect that the Intervenor was not in insurable employment.
