Pluri Vox Media Corp. v. The Queen, 2011 DTC 1175 [at at 960], 2011 TCC 237 (Informal Procedure), aff'd on different reasoning, supra -- summary under Subsection 5(1)

By services, 28 November, 2015

Rip C.J. found that Mr. Reesink, the taxpayer's sole shareholder, worked for the taxpayer as an employee rather than an independent contractor. Rip C.J. stated (para. 25):

Mr. Reesink was also a director of Pluri Vox, albeit a de facto director. The directors, the de jure directors, are not acting as directors; to the extent they do anything, they follow Mr. Reesink's wishes. Who is running the company? Mr. Reesink says he is and on the facts before me he is. It is Mr. Reesink who actually manages and supervises the management, business and affairs of Pluri Vox. It is clear that he exercised all the powers of the director [and] he was and is, in fact, a director of Pluri Vox. And since he was (and is) a de facto director of Pluri Vox, he may be an officer of the appellant.

Topics and taglines
d7 import status
Drupal 7 entity type
Node
Drupal 7 entity ID
338081
Extra import data
{
"field_legacy_header": "<a id=\"PluriVox\"></a><strong><em>Pluri Vox Media Corp. v. The Queen</em></strong>, 2011 DTC 1175 [at 960], 2011 TCC 237 (Informal Procedure), aff'd on different reasoning, <a href=\"#PluriVoxFCA\"><em>supra</em></a>",
"field_override_history": false,
"field_sid": "",
"field_topic_category": "seealso"
}