CA 1808/11 Yaakov Ohana v. Yosef Brimat, given on January 20, 2014, ibid., paragraph 33).
- In this case, there was room for the defendant to sign an enduring power of attorney because in the document presented to us, the defendant determines who will manage her property and medical affairs. According to the law, the appropriate power of attorney is an enduring power of attorney. This document, as drafted, does not meet the conditions of the Enduring Power of Attorney Law, neither in form nor in content. We have not lost sight of the fact that an enduring power of attorney came into effect according to the law only in 2017 and the document was signed in 2014, but as mentioned, it is also not an irrevocable power of attorney. Moreover, an enduring power of attorney comes into effect only when the appointer enters into incapacity, whereas in this case the power of attorney was activated while the defendant is competent (apparently). In any case, it appears that the power of attorney given to the plaintiff is invalid.
- The plaintiff claims that the defendant enrolled her in an entrepreneur course at Tel Aviv University and sent her to seminars and advanced courses. This in itself is not an indication of an employment relationship between the plaintiff and her mother.
The Mixed Test
- The mixed test includes all of the above tests and other indicators.
- Method of payment - The plaintiff received pay slips and was reported to the tax authorities and the National Insurance Institute as an employee, but as stated above, there is no match between the deposits to the bank and the amount appearing on the pay
- Moreover, according to documents attached by the plaintiff (Appendix 3 to the statement of claim dated June 8, 2022), the rent collected in 2021 was ILS 135,221 and expenses for the rent amounted to ILS 206,360. The expenses for the plaintiff's salary amounted to ILS 187,128. The plaintiff's salary was fixed over the years (approximately ILS 12,750 gross - ILS 10,106.55 net).
- According to the defendant, there is no proportion between the value of the assets and the salary she received (140% of the income - paragraph 19 of the guardian's affidavit), but we do not see the importance of the amount of the salary, since it is possible that an employee will be rewarded with a high salary if it involves a job that involves a lot of trust. However, it is clear that an employer who is not a family member would not pay a salary that is higher than the business's income.
- The equipment and tools - it has not been proven that the defendant provided the plaintiff with tools and equipment to carry out the work.
- The personal relationship test - the plaintiff performed the work personally and no one replaced her.
- Financial dependence - The plaintiff did not prove whether the funds she took from the joint account were her main income and whether she was significantly dependent on these funds.
- The duration and continuity of the relationship - there is no dispute that the plaintiff's handling of her mother's assets spanned decades. It is clear that the longer the engagement period, the greater the chances of recognition of the employment relationship.
- How did the parties view their relationship? - The plaintiff did not contact the guardian from the date of his appointment until the letter of the attorney general (P/2, p. 49) and asked for her obligation, nor did she inform the guardian who was appointed for 4 months that she was working for her mother:
Adv. Bar: So let's ask about this, I now hold N/2, this is all the correspondence between you and the lawyer, from February 27, 2022 to June, for 4 months not a single word is mentioned, the one you are employed, the one you are fired, the one you are entitled to 3 million shekels, how is it that 4 months of correspondence, not a single word appears about it? And only as soon as you are threatened with a lawsuit do you remember it.