Bocock J indicated (at para. 24) that whether annual awards (paid bi-weekly) made to a post-doctoral fellow (PDF) of the University, Dr. Lanery, were employee remuneration for CPP and EI purposes turned on a determination of their “dominant purpose,” namely, “whether on balance the payments were made on account of monetary assistance to enhance the PDF’s education and research skills or paid as income in consideration of various services provided by the PDF to the University.” Bocock J concluded (at para. 35) that the “annual award was paid with the dominant characteristic of furtherance of the education and learning of … the PDF,” so that the PDF was not an employee.
In this regard, he had found that:
- “PDFs received minimal oversight and supervision” (para. 10) so that they had “free range” in their pursuit of research;
- any teaching tasks taken on were separately remunerated by the University;
- there was no documented “obligation of the PDF to provide laboratory, tutorial, teaching or research assistance to the University” (para. 30);
- there “simply were no identifiable, direct or measurable services or activities delivered by Dr. Lanery to the University” (para. 31); and
- the evidence was consistent with “the University [having] exhorted its PDFs, and Dr. Lanery in any event, to pursue research, discussion and research in order to enhance Dr. Lanery’s long term academic skills for the benefit of her learning generally” (para. 33).