A-341-79
Attorney General of Canada (Applicant)
v.
Françoise Samson (Respondent)
Court of Appeal, Pratte and Le Dain JJ. and Hyde
D.J.—Quebec City, December 18, 1979.
Judicial review — Unemployment Insurance — Services
without remuneration Whether entitlement to benefits —
Whether existence of a contract of service — Unemployment
Insurance Act, 1971, S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 48, s. 21 — Federal
Court Act, R.S.C. 1970 (2nd Supp.), c. 10, s. 28.
APPLICATION for judicial review.
COUNSEL:
Jean-Marc Aubry for applicant.
Richard Mailhot for respondent.
SOLICITORS:
Deputy Attorney General of Canada for
applicant.
Dupont, Roy, Gingras & Brière, Quebec City,
for respondent.
The following is the English version of the
reasons for judgment of the Court delivered orally
by
PRATTE J.: We are all of the view that this
application should be dismissed. Counsel for the
applicant attacked the decision a quo by saying
that it was based on an erroneous proposition,
namely that someone providing his services to
another person without receiving any remunera
tion is not working within the meaning of section
21 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971,
S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 48.
If we interpreted the decision of the Umpire in
the same way as counsel for the applicant, we
would have to quash this decision. We consider
that someone may work for another person within
the meaning of section 21 although they receive no
remuneration if, in addition, there is between the
person performing the work and the person bene
fiting from it a relationship that may be likened to
or regarded in the same way as a contract of
service.
However, we do not interpret the decision a quo
as counsel for the applicant does. In our view, this
decision is based not simply on the fact that
respondent was not receiving, and did not expect to
receive, any remuneration, but rather on the
Umpire's opinion that, in light of all the circum
stances of this case (one such circumstance being
that respondent was not paid), it was impossible to
say that respondent had provided her services pur
suant to a contract of service, or to a contract
similar to a contract of service. On the evidence,
this opinion does not rest on any error of law.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.