Aspiro v. Canada (Attorney General)
Décary J.A., and Noël J.A. dissenting
Application for judicial review of decision of T.C.C. Judge work performed during summer by applicant in her mother's convenience store did not entitle her to receive unemployment insurance benefits, given presumption under Unemployment Insurance Act, s. 3(2)(c)(ii)--Application allowed (Noël J.A. dissenting)--Décary J.A.: Fact work seasonal, family relationship or period of employment corresponds to requisite minimum does not bar employee from qualifying to receive unemployment insurance benefits--Nothing in record or in Minister's allegations reasonably suggests in circumstances (remuneration paid, terms and conditions of employment, nature and importance of work performed) applicant and her mother would not have entered into substantially similar contract of employment if they had been dealing at arm's length--Furthermore, Judge clearly erred in his findings concerning duration of employment and reason why applicant was working during summer--Noël J.A., dissenting: Application should be dismissed--Evidence before Judge below indicated contract would not have been entered into if they had been dealing at arm's length--Not task of Court to substitute its opinion for that of T.C.C.--Unemployment Insurance Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. U-1, s. 3(2)(c)(ii) (as am. by S.C. 1990, c. 40, s. 2).