Worker worked as shingle packer at two lumber mills during relevant period and then applied for employment insurance (EI). Minister of National Revenue upheld ruling that worker had been engaged in insurable employment with employer G Ltd. for two-week period, but not for following three-month period (“further period”). Worker appealed. Appeal allowed in part. Minister’s decision was varied by adding insurable employment of 98 hours in first month and 56 hours in third month of further period. Worker’s testimony was general and vague as to dates worked and when he made EI applications, which was understandable given lapse of time. Worker’s evidence was consistent that he had worked in both mills during further period. Worker received cheque from G Ltd. dated at end of third month, which was indicative that worker did work 56 hours for G Ltd. in third month. Whether that mill was closed during that period was not verified. Worker received cheque from G Ltd. dated at end of first month, which was corroborative of worker’s position that he had worked for G Ltd. during that month. If there had been shortage of work prior to further period, that could be function of short term fluctuations in supply and demand for small operators in lumber industry.
Sidhu v. M.N.R. (2018), 2018 CarswellNat 2704, 2018 TCC 101, B. Russell J. (T.C.C. [Employment Insurance]).