These summaries are prepared by Brad M. Caldwell,
401-815 Hornby Street,
Vancouver, B.C.,
V6Z 2E6.
Telephone (604) 689-8894 -
Facsimile (604) 689-5739 -
E-mail: bcaldwell@admiraltylaw.com
Copies of many of the
decisions referred to can be obtained from the web site of the
Canadian Legal Information
Institute. At this site, these cases can also be noted up using the Reflex
Record to determine whether they have been changed upon appeal.
Employment Law
Masyk
v. F.A.S. Seafood 2003
BCSC 1644 (B.C.S.C.)
This case involved a deckhand who
was suing the owner of several fishing vessels for wrongful dismissal without
proper notice. One issue that was raised during a summary trial application was
whether or not the deckhand was an employee so as to be able to sue for wrongful
dismissal without notice. The
court accepted the vessel owner’s argument that the deckhand was a dependant
contractor or free agent rather than an employee and, accordingly, was not
automatically entitled to the protection against dismissal without notice
provide by either Provincial or Federal legislation. As such, the Court held it was incumbent upon the deckhand to pursue work
opportunities with the vessel owner and/or skipper rather than simply waiting to
be called to work.
Editors Note: See also the article posted to
the Papers section of the Fisheries’ Page entitled, The
Legal Status of Crew Members in the West Coast Fishing Industry:
Employees, Dependant Contractors or Something in Between.
Employment Law –
Employment Insurance Appeal
Judicial Review
Crown Liability
Mercer
v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue [2003] T.C.J. NO. 543, 2003 TCC 652 (Tax Ct. of
Canada) (Cain D.T.C.J.)
This case dealt the issue of whether or not the
common law spouse of an East Coast fish boat owner who worked as a deckhand on
his fishing vessel could be considered an employee for the purpose of a section
of the Employment Insurance Act that excluded coverage for employees who
do not work at arms length from their employers. Based upon the evidence that the deckhand received 79 per
cent of the share of the catch while only performing 50 per cent of the duties,
the Court excluded coverage based upon the assumption that she was an employee.
|