The Tender For Law

Volume 14

May 05, 2016 8:25 PM

Steph Boucher

***from a conversation I tried to have over the phone with Scott last Monday, with an awful connection and really poor thinking***

This is 2 days later, my thoughts organized themselves.

I think if its relevant OR a shit stain it need some more exposure.

Steph Boucher

I tried to skim down my thoughts from my monday none sense to the following; I am getting more involved with the corporation hiring me, on the side of safety at heights. I see big corporations are trying to make their workers surety for their mistakes. I am okay with having my values from the risk I take but, in the scam we live in I have good reasons to believe this solely to deflect surety to the person and avoid the weight of the administration and cover internal absurde improductive value less bureacracy... its always about surety and accounting. I got anxiouse yerterday that I was miss interpreted on "profiting for what you thought". I assure you it is not the case, it was an honest mistake of communication, I would never do that. Never. How can I be employed by a corporation and adminitrate my person as such, without joinders to the rest of commercial endavors the man I have to carry about in society. I came down to the answer; I CAN'T. Am I o

Read Comments

Steph Boucher

It could be a shit stain... it been a while I commited one. It could miss important piece but... hey even a missing piece played in the favor of the man I am, I still have reason to believe they would improvise it just for me ;)

Age Thomson

I'm having some difficulty trying to grasp what you are trying to say Steph Boucher. I think you are looking at how to remove your name from commerce, but still being able to eat, correct?

If that's the case, what if you had another person in the equation, a person that you have created?

Steph Boucher

I thought so... Duhaime and legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/employee had slightly conflictual definition.

Duhaime is better;

The status of employee is often determinative of tax status as employment income is generally taken as straight income paid to the individual. Those who wish to represent to the tax authority that their services were not those of an employee but, rather, of an independent contractor, would benefit from a different treatment of their income for tax purposes, generally able to reduce their taxable income by any business-related expenses.

Agents are also distinguished from employees. An employee is an agent of the employer but not all agents of the employer are necessarily employees. For example, an employer might hire a law firm to pursue debt claim. That lawyer remains an agent of the employer but at no time is an employee.

Thus, in Carter v Great West, Justice Walsh of the Alberta Supreme Court wrote:

"It may be true in a broad sense to say that one who is employed is an employeeand it would certainly sound funny to refer to a bank president as anemployee of his bank. While, however, it is strictly correct to say that everyone who is anemployee is employed by another I do not think it is equally true to say that everyone who is employed by another is his employee.

"For instance, a solicitor who is engaged by a client to do certain work for him is employed by him for that purpose, as is a doctor who gives his professional skill to a patient, but no one would think of referring to either of these professional men as an employee of his client or his patient."