Workers are typically thought of as either “employees” or “independent contractors”. Employers seek to classify their workforce as “contractors” to avoid paying for mandatory benefits under the Employment Standards Act (ESA), among other things, which only protects employees as defined under the ESA.

However, Canadian courts recognize an intermediate position where, although the worker is not an employee, they are still economically dependent on one contract. These so-called “dependent contractors” are entitled to reasonable notice upon termination of the contractual relationship.

In a recent decision, the Ontario Court of Appeal in Thurston v Ontario (Children’s Lawyer), 2019 ONCA 640, clarified the circumstances in which someone can be classified as a “dependent contractor”. The Court ruled that a dependent contractor relationship is one in which there is “a certain minimum economic dependency, which may be demonstrated by compete or near-complete exclusivity.”[1] This decision could be highly relevant for workers in the modern economy who depend on precarious contract work to make a living.

Background

Ms. Thurston was a sole practitioner lawyer who provided legal services to the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (“OCL”) for 13 years. Each year, the OCL had Ms. Thurston and its other lawyers sign a fixed-term contract, which made up about 40% of Ms. Thurston’s annual income. According to the contract, the OCL made no guarantee of the total value or volume of work that Ms. Thurston would receive, and the OCL could terminate the contract in any circumstances, without notice. When the OCL decided not to renew her contract in 2015, Ms. Thurston claimed that she was a dependent contractor, and therefore that she was entitled to 20 months’ notice of termination.

The Motion Judge’s Decision

When Ms. Thurston filed her lawsuit at the Superior Court claiming that she was a dependent contractor, the OCL brought a motion asking the judge to dismiss the case. The motion judge ruled against the employer. The motion judge noted that the relationship was continuous and permanent for 13 years and that Ms. Thurston was seen as an employee by the public. In addition, 40% of Ms. Thurston’s average billings from her legal practice came from OCL. The OCL appealed the motion judge’s decision to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal’s Decision

The Court of Appeal reversed the motion judge’s decision and dismissed Ms. Thurston’s case. The court reaffirmed that a worker claiming “dependent contractor” status must lead evidence showing “minimum economic dependency” on the contract. The court explained that a plaintiff demonstrates economic dependence with evidence of near-complete exclusivity:

In distinguishing dependent from independent contractors, McKee made clear that exclusivity of service provision, and therefore of income, is key. As the court put it, “exclusivity is determinative, as it demonstrates economic dependence”; exclusivity, the court said, is a “hallmark” of the dependent contractor category: McKee, at para. 34. In Keenan, at para. 25, this court emphasized that exclusivity was “integrally tied to the question of economic dependency” and that the determination of exclusivity requires consideration of the full history of the relationship in question.[2]

The court based its conclusion on other court decisions that considered this issue and identified near-complete exclusivity as the key factor. In some cases, courts have decided that someone can be a dependent contractor if “substantially more than a majority” of the dependent contractor’s income was earned through one contract.

In Ms. Thurston’s case, the court ruled that she failed to establish the required degree of exclusivity which would demonstrate her economic dependence on the OCL. Ms. Thurston maintained an independent legal practice throughout her time with the OCL, and her work with the OCL only averaged 39.9% of her annual billings – hardly exclusive service. The court confirmed that “near-exclusivity necessarily requires substantially more than 50% of billings.”[3] While the OCL was certainly an important client for her, the Court of Appeal found that the motion judge’s decision failed to appropriately consider the facts and apply the exclusivity test, and for that reason, the motion judge’s decision was unreasonable in the court’s opinion.

Discussion

The Court of Appeal’s decision is a step backwards for dependent contractors who rely on one contracting party for a large portion of their income but would not meet the Court’s onerous “near-complete exclusivity” threshold. Although the decision simply reaffirmed what the Court of Appeal has said in previous decisions (see for example McKee v Reid’s Heritage Homes Ltd., 2009 ONCA 916; Keenan v Canac Kitchens Ltd., 2016 ONCA 79), nevertheless, the Court’s guidance in this case on what constitutes a dependent contractor is useful to those who work through contracting parties. This case is the latest in a long line of decisions confirming that in classifying a work relationship, courts will focus on the substance of the relationship. For workers whose income depends on precarious contract relationships, this means that an employer cannot hide behind the “independent contractor” label if the facts point to a different conclusion.

If you have any questions regarding your employment situation, consult one of our experienced employment lawyers at Raven, Cameron, Ballantyne and Yazbeck LLP. 

[1] Thurston v. Ontario (Children’s Lawyer), 2019 ONCA 640  at para 23.

[2] Thurston, supra, at para 25.

[3] Thurston, supra at para 30.

[This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice, which cannot be given without consideration of your individual circumstances.]

By Geoff Dunlop and Raphaёlle Laframboise-Carignan

Since our post on the introduction of the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) (which you can read here), the federal government has announced changes to the program to address some of the identified gaps in eligibility. Based on these most recent changes, many more individuals should qualify to receive the CERB. This post will outline who is now eligible, and who is still left out, of this important benefit.

What is the CERB?

The CERB is a benefit to replace income lost due to the COVID-19 pandemic. It is a flat, taxable amount for all eligible claimants: $2,000 for every four weeks you are eligible, up to a maximum of 16 weeks, between March 15 (retroactive) and October 3, 2020.

What has stayed the same?

To qualify for the CERB, you still need to be a resident of Canada of at least 15 years of age, and must have had at least $5,000 in income from work (employment or self-employment), EI maternity or parental benefits, or Quebec’s parental benefits program QPIP in the last year. These requirements have not changed with the expansion of the program.

What has changed?

Some of the eligibility criteria have been expanded, to allow more individuals to qualify for the CERB:

• You are no longer required to have had NO income from employment, self-employment, any EI or QPIP benefit for at least 14 days in a row. Instead, you can qualify for the CERB if you earned less than $1,000 in an eligibility period (that period is at least 14 days in a row if you are applying for the first time, and 4 weeks if you are applying again for a subsequent period).
• You can also qualify for the CERB if you are a seasonal worker who has exhausted your regular EI benefits, and are unable to undertake your seasonal work due to COVID-19. You must have received EI benefits for at least one week since December 29, 2019.
• Finally, you may qualify for the CERB if you have recently exhausted your regular EI benefits, and are unable to find work due to COVID-19. Again, you must have received EI benefits for at least one week since December 29, 2019.

These changes are retroactive to March 15.

Who is still left out?

The expansion of the CERB is welcome news, but, unfortunately, even the expanded version of this program still contains gaps that will leave many Canadians without access to this benefit.

Workers making $1,000 – $2,000 per month

One of the most important and much-needed changes to this program was to expand it to include workers who had experienced a significant reduction in hours, but who were still earning some income. Workers can now earn up to $1,000 per month and still access the CERB.

However, there is still an obvious gap in the program’s design—there are many workers who will be earning less from their employment than the value of the CERB, and yet they continue to be excluded from this benefit. It is unclear why the government did not expand access to all workers making less than the value of the CERB ($2,000 every four weeks), and simply deduct any amounts earned from the benefit.

Students seeking summer employment

As noted in our previous post, many students who were counting on employment during the summer months will not be able to find jobs due to the pandemic. However, because they did not lose a current source of income, they will not qualify for CERB, and most of them are unlikely to have been receiving EI regular benefits recently. Students who are about to graduate and were about to enter the job market will not have access to this benefit.

The government has reiterated that more help may be on the way for students, but no specifics have been provided so far.

Workers who have been unemployed for a long period

The benefit has been extended to anyone who has exhausted their EI regular benefits, only if they have received at least one week of EI benefits after December 29, 2019. Therefore, any unemployed workers who ran out of EI benefits before that time are still ineligible for the CERB.

Is it time for a universal benefit?

The most recent changes to the CERB will be met with criticism and questions about who continues to be left behind, in response to which the government will in all likelihood tweak the program further. Instead of the current piecemeal, incremental approach, many have called on the government to simply grant a $2,000 per month benefit to all Canadians, and reclaim it from those who did not need it through taxes next year. It remains to be seen whether this view will gain any traction within the government.

Updated information about the CERB and how to apply can be found here.

[This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice, which cannot be given without an assessment of your individual circumstances.]

On March 4, 2020, Morgan Rowe presented a workshop on human rights law, worker’s rights, and how these two sets of rights can be used to help individuals with disabilities challenge barriers in employment. The workshop was hosted by CUPE Local 2626.

The firm gratefully acknowledges the contribution to this post by articling student Zachary Rodgers.

The Office and Professional Employees International Union (OPEIU), represented by Wassim Garzouzi, recently scored a major victory for the privacy rights of workers across Canada. On December 9, 2019, Arbitrator Susan Ashley affirmed that employers in Canada cannot unilaterally impose random drug and alcohol testing on its unionized employees, despite the legalization of cannabis and the uniquely dangerous nature of the work in question.

The employer in this case, a helicopter company providing passenger transport to offshore oil operations, sought to initiate random drug and alcohol testing of its helicopter pilots (and other employees in safety sensitive positions) following the legalization of cannabis in Canada. At the time, the employer already had a robust drug and alcohol policy in place that allowed it to test employees in safety sensitive positions if there was reasonable cause to suspect the employee was under the influence of drugs or alcohol. The Union took no issue with “for cause” testing. The only issue at arbitration was whether the employer could force employees to submit to drug and alcohol testing at random (i.e. without cause).

The Union successfully argued that Canadian courts and arbitrators have long rejected random testing as an unreasonable violation of individual privacy rights. In Irving Pulp & Paper Ltd, the Supreme Court of Canada concluded that even in workplaces where safety is paramount, random testing is too great an infringement on employee privacy rights if there is no existing and pervasive problem of drug and alcohol use in the workplace.

Arbitrator Ashley rejected the employer’s argument that the legalization of cannabis in Canada had changed the legal landscape. She equally rejected the employer’s position that the uniquely dangerous work of flying helicopters offshore justified the violation of employees’ privacy rights. Significantly, the arbitrator found that, although oral swab testing is less invasive than other methods of drug testing, it still amounts to “an unjustified affront to the dignity and privacy rights of the affected employees.”

This award, in favour of the Union, is one of the first post-legalization decisions in Canada that affirms the Canadian model, which requires employers to demonstrate an existing and pervasive alcohol or drug problem in the workplace before random testing can be justified. Importantly, employers cannot rely on the legalization of cannabis to justify upending the status quo on drug testing in Canadian workplaces.

RavenLaw congratulates OPEIU on its hard-fought and successful defence of employee privacy rights in Canada.

On March 5, 2020, Anna Lichty and Megan Fultz represented Ravenlaw at the 2020 uOttawa Career Day at the Ottawa Conference and Event Centre.

Anna and Megan hosted four Community & Public Lawyering Roundtables, conducted a series of mock interviews with students interested in labour and employment law, and had the opportunity to meet and discuss our firm’s work with many first and second-year law students at a networking lunch. Thank you to the organizers for putting on this great event, and thank you to the uOttawa students for your engagement and enthusiasm!

If you’re a student looking for more information about the summer or articling experience at Ravenlaw, please contact us at studentrecruitment@ravenlaw.com.

This week, the Government has started accepting applications from employers for the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy (CEWS), part of the Government’s economic response to the COVID-19 pandemic crisis. This new benefit is unprecedented in scope and is likely to be well received by many employers and employees. However, the design of this benefit arguably leaves too much power in the hands of employers.

What is the CEWS?

The CEWS is a wage subsidy intended to help employers that are struggling due to COVID-19, allowing them to recall employees that have been laid off, and to avoid future layoffs. Eligible employers will receive a subsidy for up to 12 weeks between March 15 and June 6, provided they can show the required reduction in revenue for that period. The Government has not imposed any size limit on eligible employers and has extended the benefit to all types of businesses, as well as not-for-profit organizations and charities. Only public institutions, such as schools and hospitals, are excluded.

How much does the subsidy cover?

The subsidy will cover up to 75% of wages on the first $58,700 that an employee earns, up to a maximum of $847 a week. There are special calculations for employees whose pay has been reduced since before the crisis, and for non-arm’s length employees.

Employees who have been laid off can become eligible retroactively for the CEWS if the employer rehires them. However, if those employees have received the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB), and they will earn more than $1000 per month as a result of being rehired, they will have to repay the CERB.

Does the CEWS give too much power to employers?

This program is new and therefore may be revised and adjusted in response to public criticism, similar to the CERB. The Government may want to consider some of the ways in which this program’s design places too much power in the hands of employers.

No obligation on employers to pay remaining 25% of wages

The Government is not requiring employers to pay the remaining 25% of employees’ wages as a condition of eligibility for the CEWS. The Government has stated publicly that it “expects” employers to make best efforts to pay the remaining salary amounts, but it is unclear whether there will be any mechanism to enforce that expectation. As a result, there is a concern that many employers will recall employees at only 75% of their previous pay rate, or even potentially reduce the pay of existing employees. This program should obviously not create an incentive for employers to pay their workers less.

Employers decide the level of government benefit for workers

The CEWS (up to $847 per week) is a far more valuable benefit than the CERB ($500 per week). A worker who has been laid off due to COVID-19 is only eligible for the CERB, but that worker’s employer could choose to rehire them solely for the purposes of accessing the CEWS, thereby granting that worker access to a significantly larger benefit.

This program therefore gives a huge amount of power to employers to basically decide how much financial relief their workers will receive during this crisis. One way to fix this flaw is to increase the value of the CERB to make it equivalent to the CEWS.

Will the CEWS strengthen a claim of constructive dismissal?

While the CEWS appears to place workers at the mercy of their employers in many respects, one way in which it may hand some power back to workers is in claims for constructive dismissal.

Many employment law experts have questioned how courts will consider claims of constructive dismissal in these extraordinary circumstances. Some argue that the COVID-19 crisis may justify greater changes to the employment relationship than have previously been accepted, on the theory that a reasonable person in the employee’s position would not consider the change to amount to a dismissal in this unique context.

The CEWS offers significant relief to employers in meeting payroll obligations, and so it may play a role in the constructive dismissal analysis. A reasonable employee may, for example, consider themselves constructively dismissed if they are laid off or have their wages reduced, if the employer cannot prove that these changes were necessary despite the presence of the CEWS benefit.

These questions, unfortunately, will not be answered by the courts for some time. Therefore, it is important for employees to obtain legal advice before claiming constructive dismissal, to fully understand the risks and consequences.

[This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice, which cannot be given without an assessment of your individual circumstances.]

On September 17, 2019, Raphaëlle Laframboise-Carignan gave a presentation to the members of the Mood Disorders Ottawa (MDO) support group, a peer-run organization aimed at enhancing the lives of people with mood disorders. She presented on the topics of Short-Term Disability, Long-Term Disability, Canada Pension Plan Disability benefits, and accommodation in the workplace. Raphaëlle would like to thank the MDO group for inviting her to participate in their session.

In a recent judgment, the Ontario Court of Appeal overturned a lower court decision and held that there is no independent tort of harassment in Ontario. The Court explained that there was no support in the case law in Canada or internationally to extend the law to recognize this new tort. This judgment has left many Ontario employees wondering – what recourse do I have now, if I experience workplace harassment? This post will explore some of the possible options you may still have to pursue your rights, depending on your particular circumstances.

Discriminatory harassment – human rights complaint

Is the workplace harassment you are experiencing based on a prohibited ground of discrimination? For example, is it harassment based on your sex, race, age, or disability? If so, you could bring an Application to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, alleging that you have experienced discrimination and harassment in the course of your employment. If the Tribunal finds in your favour, you could be awarded monetary compensation, reinstatement to your employment if you’ve been terminated, and systemic orders against your employer to comply with human rights legislation going forward.

Workplace harassment in a unionized environment – grievance

Are you a unionized employee? If so, you could talk to your union about filing a grievance about the workplace harassment. Many unionized workplaces have collective agreement protections against harassment, or employer policies prohibiting harassment in the workplace, that can form the basis of a grievance. Harassment grievances are often challenging to succeed in, but if successful, an arbitrator has broad discretion to award an appropriate remedy.

Failure of employer to conduct harassment investigation – Ministry of Labour complaint

​Did you ask your employer to investigate the harassment incident, and the employer failed to do so? If so, you could file a complaint with the Ministry of Labour. All Ontario workplaces have obligations to implement appropriate harassment policies and programs under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, and a Ministry of Labour inspector could order the employer to comply with the Act if it has failed to do so. However, this avenue of recourse is limited, as a Ministry inspector cannot investigate whether workplace harassment actually occurred, and cannot award any individual remedies to an employee.

Harassment leading to resignation – claim for constructive dismissal

Was the harassment so severe that it led you to resign from your employment? If so, you may be able to pursue a claim for constructive dismissal in court. This claim requires conduct by your employer that is inconsistent with an intention to continue to be bound by your employment contract, including creating a toxic work environment due to harassment. If successful in a claim of constructive dismissal, a court may award you damages similar to what you would receive if your employment had been wrongfully terminated.

Flagrant or outrageous harassment – claim for intentional infliction of mental distress

Depending on the severity of the workplace harassment, you may still have a tort claim available in the courts. In Merrifield​, the Ontario Court of Appeal noted that the tort of intentional infliction of mental distress still exists in the employment context, and is available in situations where someone like Merrifield would seek to claim damages for harassment. The test for intentional infliction of mental distress is stricter than the test the lower court had articulated for harassment, however; it requires conduct that : a) is flagrant and outrageous ; b) is calculated to produce harm; and c) results in visible and provable illness. This is a relatively high threshold to meet, but if it can be met, it could result in an award of general damages.

If all else fails – attempt to revive the tort of harassment?

Curiously, the Ontario Court of Appeal left the door open to accept the existence of the tort of harassment in the future. The Court held that it did “not foreclose the development of a properly conceived tort of harassment that might apply in appropriate contexts”. The Court did not elaborate on what those appropriate contexts might be. Accordingly, if none of the above avenues of recourse apply, but the claim for workplace harassment is compelling based on the evidence, it may be worth revisiting the potential existence of this tort.

[This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice, which cannot be given without consideration of your individual circumstances.]

RavenLaw was pleased to be invited to consult on this year’s Lancaster House Human Rights and Labour Law conference in Ottawa and to present on multiple panels. The annual two-day conference addresses a wide range of topical and emerging issues in the area of labour and human rights law.

Andrew Astritis served on the conference’s Advisory Committee this year, helping to plan the event. Wassim Garzouzi presented on October 10, 2019 as part of the panel “Taking Stock, Looking Ahead: Major caselaw and legislative update.” Morgan Rowepresented on October 11, 2019, discussing the difficult questions that arise when workers experience illnesses and disabilities due to workplace stress, bullying, and interpersonal conflicts.

As an employee, once you have applied for Long Term Disability (LTD) benefits, you have certain responsibilities you must fulfil to ensure that your claim for benefits is accepted or to ensure that you continue receiving benefits. The specifics of these responsibilities will be listed in the benefits policy and will usually include the following:

• Making reasonable efforts to recover

As part of your responsibilities, the insurance company expects that you will make efforts to recover from your illness or injury. This includes being under the care of a physician, specialist, or other treatment providers and also requires you to participate in any reasonable and customary treatment or rehabilitative program.

If you and your treating physician(s) believe that you cannot take part in a program recommended by the insurance company, you will need to provide medical evidence as to why you cannot take part. This should state that your participation in a program would hinder your recovery efforts and explain why in detail.

• Making reasonable efforts to attempt a return to work 

The insurance company will also expect you to make reasonable efforts to attempt to return to work either in your own occupation or in an alternate job.

Usually, a return to work will start gradually, taking your physicians’ advice regarding hours, schedule, restrictions, and limitations. The return to work may also consist of modified duties for a certain period, depending on your physician’s advice.

• Applying for other benefits 

Your policy will most likely set out your responsibility to apply for other benefits that you may qualify for, such as Canada Pension Plan (CPP) Disability benefits. Some policies will even ask that you appeal any decision denying those benefits.

Insurers usually set up their insurance policies, so they become the “payors of last resort”. This means that other sources of income, such as CPP Disability benefits, are deducted or offset from your LTD benefit. You will also be required to let your insurance company know if you apply for other benefits and they are approved. Those new benefits may reduce the amount you receive from the insurance company.

For more information on this topic, please refer to our article on long term disability offsets.

• Reporting other income 

The insurance company will expect you to report any income you are receiving from sources other than your LTD claim.

It is important for you to advise your caseworker about any other sources of income from other employment or benefits. If you do not advise your insurance company, you could be responsible for repaying some or all of the LTD benefits you have already received.

Check your specific policy to see what qualifies as reportable income, but generally, it consists of the following:

• CPP Disability Benefits;
• WSIB payments;
• Notice or Severance payment from your employer if you are terminated; and
• Employment Income not previously approved by the insurance company.
• Cooperating with the Insurance Company regarding your health 

 It is important to cooperate with your insurance company and provide them with updated medical documents and medical information when they ask for them. This might include surgery dates, new diagnosis, new findings, test results, and new medications.

Unlike the employment context, where there is no obligation to provide all medical reports or diagnoses to your employer when on sick leave or when making an accommodation request, dealing with an insurance company is different. You are required to provide them with medical reports and diagnosis to show that you meet the definition of disability as set out in the LTD policy.

It is also valuable to inform the insurance company of your progress or setbacks regarding your illness/injury.

We are here to help navigate the Long Term Disability claim process. Consult one of our experienced Disability lawyers at Raven, Cameron, Ballantyne and Yazbeck LLP if you are considering making a claim for disability benefits or if your disability claim for benefits has been denied. 

[This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice, which cannot be given without consideration of your individual circumstances.]