Posts

Employee, Independent Contractor or something in between?

As an employment law lawyer, one of the most common issues I face is confusion from clients over whether they are (or a particular worker is) an “employee,” or “independent contractor.” It is important to understand how workers are classified, and what that means for them in terms of rate of pay, benefits, and legal protections upon termination. Employers must be diligent in properly classifying their workers, as failure to do so can result in serious penalties and tax consequences.

Employees vs Independent Contractors

Strict definitions for the terms “employee,” “independent contractor,” and “dependent contractor” have not been very useful, so courts have relied upon various common law tests for determining the differences between them. Despite these tests, it is not always easy to determine the proper classification of any individual worker.

Employees

A worker may be an employee under the law even if they have agreed in writing to be classified as an independent contractor, submit invoices, or use their own vehicle while completing work tasks.

If having a contract or submitting invoices doesn’t make someone an independent contractor, what does?

In determining whether a worker is an employee, there is not one single overriding factor. Each worker’s situation will be viewed independently, and several different factors will be weighed. With that being said, a worker may be an employee if some of the following factors describe their work situation:

  • The employer provides all the tools and equipment needed to perform work duties;
  • Pay does not fluctuate according to how quickly or how well work is done. For example, the worker is not paid more if a task is finished by Wednesday, instead of Friday;
  • The employer can discipline or suspend;
  • The worker does not determine what job tasks need to be completed;
  • The worker does not set his own rate of pay for his services;
  • The employer determines the location where work is performed; or
  • The employer determines when tasks need to be completed by.

If a worker is an employee under the law, then she is entitled to all the employment rights and protections found in the Employment Standards Act. These rights and protections include:

  • Minimum wage;
  • Overtime pay;
  • Vacation pay;
  • Protected leave; and
  • Notice, or termination pay in-lieu-of notice.

Independent Contractors

Factors that the Court considers in deciding on the issue are similar, but opposite, to those considerations for employees, and include:

  • The worker owns or provides the tools and equipment needed to perform work duties;
  • The worker is in business for him/her self. This means the worker has the ability to make a profit (if the work is done quickly, efficiently, or inexpensively, for example) but also that their is a risk that he looses money (if, for example, the worker under estimated his costs, or circumstances arise that make the work more expensive than anticipated);
  • The worker may be paid more or less money depending on when the job tasks are completed;
  • The worker can subcontract the job tasks;
  • The employer cannot discipline the worker but he could cancel the contract;
  • The worker can work for multiple organizations at the same time; and
  • The worker exercises some control in where or when work is done and who performs that work.

An independent contractor will not have any of the rights outlined above for employees, unless such rights have been negotiated in a valid Independent Contractor Agreement.

What does the case law say?

In Belton et al. v. Liberty Insurance Company of Canada, the Ontario Court of Appeal heard a case where the classification of insurance agents as employees or independent contractors was the central issue. Mr. Belton, and similar workers, were commissioned sales agents, selling insurance for Liberty Insurance. Each agent had signed a written employment agreement with Liberty Insurance in which they acknowledged they were independent contractors. Liberty Insurance eventually presented the agents with new contracts, which reduced their commission rates and added minimum production levels. The agents refused to sign the new contracts, and Liberty Insurance terminated their employment. The agents sued their employer for wrongful termination. The trial judge concluded that the agents were employees under the law, not independent contractors.

In reviewing this case on appeal, the Ontario Court of Appeal noted that a written agreement stating workers will be classified as independent contractors is not determinative of the proper classification under the law. The Court also outlined the specific factors the trial judge had identified as factors she had weighed in reaching her conclusion:

  1. Whether or not the agent was limited exclusively to the service of the principal;
  2. Whether or not the agent is subject to the control of the principal, not only as to the product sold, but also as to when, where and how it is sold;
  3. Whether or not the agent has an investment or interest in what are characterized as the “tools” relating to his service;
  4. Whether or not the agent has undertaken any risk in the business sense or, alternatively, has any expectation of profit associated with the delivery of his service as distinct from a fixed commission;
  5. Whether or not the activity of the agent is part of the business organization of the principal for which he works. In other words, whose business is it?

The Court of Appeal acknowledged, as the Trial Court had, that there was no direct contact allowed between the agents and their customers regarding policy changes or renewals, all of the agents had Liberty Insurance managers, the agents were not permitted to advertise using Liberty Insurance’s name, and the agents did not have any ownership rights to their customers. Therefore, that the agents were employees of Liberty Insurance, not independent contractors.

Dependent Contractors

The courts have more recently recognized a middle ground between employee and independent contractor by the classification of some workers as “dependent contractors.”

It is important to note that the courts are not creating an entirely new third category of workers with this distinction. Instead, dependent contractors are considered a subset of “contractors,” who merit different treatment upon termination than independent contractors do.

In McKee v. Reid’s Heritage Homes Ltd., the Court of Appeal heard a case which illustrates this distinction. Heritage Homes, owned by Reid, entered into a written independent contractor agreement with Nu Home Consultant Services, which was operated by its owner McKee. McKee was to advertise and sell 69 homes for Reid, for a fee of $2,500 per home sold. Reid was to have sole use of McKee’s services until the relationship ended. The 69 homes were quickly sold, and the contractual relationship continued. The relationship even continued after Reid’s death, at which time his son-in-law, Blevins, succeeded him.

Blevins eventually decided that McKee and her sub-agents should have to work as direct employees. McKee requested the new employment agreement be put in writing, but the parties were never able to reach mutually agreeable terms. The employment relationship subsequently ended, and McKee sued for wrongful termination. After examining the relevant factors, the trial court found McKee to be an employee, and awarded her eighteen months of termination pay in lieu of notice.

In reviewing this case, the Court of Appeal looked at the classifications of employees, independent contractors and dependant contractors:

I conclude that an intermediate category exists, which consists, at least, of those non-employment work relationships that exhibit a certain minimum economic dependency, which may be demonstrated by complete or near-complete exclusivity. Workers in this category are known as “dependent contractors” and they are owed reasonable notice upon termination.

The Court of Appeal went on to explain that the first step “is to determine whether a worker is a contractor or an employee.” If the first step determines the worker to be a contractor, then step two “determines whether the contractor is independent or dependent, for which a worker’s exclusivity is determinative, as it demonstrates economic independence.”

The courts have made it clear that dependent contractors are entitled to reasonable notice, or termination pay in lieu of notice. The length of notice can be specified in an employment agreement. If there is not a valid employment agreement speaking to this issue, then the length of appropriate notice will vary on a case by case basis, determined by the weighing of several factors.

Final Thoughts

It can often be difficult to determine how a worker should be classified. There are great differences in these classifications, and those differences can have a huge impact on both employees and employers.

The fact is that that vase majority of workers classified by their employers as independent contractors are not. If you are a worker, you are probably not an independent contractor. If you are an employer, that person coming into your workplace everyday is probably an employee. Regardless of what your contract may say, a Court may decide that the worker is entitled to all the protections in the Employment Standards Act.

For employees, if you have concerns that you have been improperly classified, speak to a knowledgeable Ontario employment lawyer as soon as possible. The lawyer can go over the specific details of your employment situation and give you advice on which classification is the most appropriate for you. With this information, you will know what rights are due to you while still employed, and also at the end of the employment relationship.

For employers, I also recommend speaking to an employment lawyer if you have concerns about the proper classification of your workers. Failure to properly classify workers can result in serious penalties. You may be stuck with large severance payments because your improper classifications caused you to fail to meet the notice requirements. If workers are properly classified, these are issues that can be specified to in a written employment contract. This limits your overall exposure. A lawyer well-versed in such employment issues can help you make the best decisions for your business.


Contact Justin W. Anisman

Contact Justin W. Anisman, the author of this blog, about any employment law related questions or issues you may be facing. Call 416-304-7005 or email him at janisman@btlegal.ca.

Justin W. Anisman is an Employment Lawyer at the Toronto law firm Brauti Thorning LLP. Justin advises both companies and individuals in all aspects of employment law including wrongful dismissal, human rights and discrimination.


The publications made on this website are provided and intended for general introductory information purposes only. They do not constitute legal or other professional advice, or an opinion of any kind. Speak to a professional before making decisions about your own particular circumstances.

Employment Law for Bartenders, Waiters and Waitresses

Bartenders, waiters and waitresses, or “Liquor Servers” as they are referred to in the Employment Standards Act (“ESA”), are given special treatment under the law and by the Ontario Courts. While many of the ESA’s provisions apply equally to all types of employees, there are some important distinctions for liquor servers that hospitality employees and employers should know. This article is meant to highlight some of those important differences.

Minimum Wage

As of January 1, 2018, minimum wage for most workers in Ontario was increased to $14.00 per hour. However, the ESA permits lower minimum wage rates for certain designated groups of workers who receive tips as a significant portion of their income. Liquor servers fall into this category. Since January of 2018, the minimum wage rate for liquor servers is $12.20 per hour.

While the terms “Liquor Server” or “Bartender” are not specifically defined in the ESA, the relevant section on minimum wage provides helpful insight into whether an employee’s minimum wage rate can legally be lowered to $12.20 per hour. The ESA states as follows:

Determination of Minimum Wage
23.1 (1) The minimum wage is the following:
1. On or after January 1, 2018, but before October 1, 2020, the amount set out below for the following classes of employees:
ii. For employees who, as a regular part of their employment, serve liquor directly to customers, guests, members or patrons in premises for which a licence or permit has been issued under the Liquor Licence Act and who regularly receive tips or other gratuities from their work, $12.20 per hour. [emphasis added]

Minimum Wage After October 2020

As suggested in the above section, after October of 2020, the minimum wage rate for liquor servers will increase in accordance with a formula based on the Consumer Price Index. This formula is as follows:

Previous Wage × (Index A/Index B) = Adjusted Wage

In which:

“Previous wage” is the minimum wage rate that applied immediately before October 1st of the year;

“Index A” is the Consumer Price Index for the previous calendar year;

“Index B” is the Consumer Price Index for the calendar year immediately preceding the calendar year mentioned in the description of “Index A;” and

“Adjusted wage” is the resulting new minimum wage rate.

Termination, Reasonable Notice, and Wages

Like all employees in Ontario, liquor servers are entitled to a certain amount of notice, or pay in lieu of notice, when their employment is terminated.

That being said, for liquor servers, more often than not a significant portion of their income comes in the form of tips. Therefore, the biggest question I get as a Toronto employment lawyer, from both employees and employers, is whether tips should be included as wages for the purpose of pay in lieu of reasonable notice. The answer to that questions depends significantly on whether the bartender or liquor server has a valid employment contract that limits notice only to those minimums under the ESA.

Under the ESA, Wages Do Not Include Tips

Under the ESA, generally when an employer terminates an employee who has been continuously employed for at least 3 months, the employer must provide the employee with notice, or pay in lieu of notice. This pay in lieu of notice is often referred to as “termination pay.” The amount of written notice required by the ESA is as follows:

Employment Period Notice Length
3 months – less than 1 year 1 Week
1 year – less than 3 years 2 Weeks
3 years – less than 4 years 3 Weeks
4 years – less than 5 years 4 Weeks
5 years – less than 6 years 5 Weeks
6 years – less than 7 years 6 Weeks
7 years – less than 8 years 7 Weeks
8 years or more 8 Weeks

If an employee, by an enforceable employment contract, is only entitled to the minimums under the ESA, then that worker may NOT be owed tips. Wages under the ESA are defined as:

“Wages” means:
(a) monetary remuneration payable by an employer to an employee under the terms of an employment contract, oral or written, express or implied,
(b) any payment required to be made by an employer to an employee under this Act, and
(c) any allowances for room or board under an employment contract or prescribed allowances,
but does not include,
(d) tips or other gratuities,
(e) any sums paid as gifts or bonuses that are dependent on the discretion of the employer and that are not related to hours, production or efficiency,
(f) expenses and travelling allowances, or
(g) subject to subsections 60 (3) or 62 (2), employer contributions to a benefit plan and payments to which an employee is entitled from a benefit plan. [emphasis added]

Without an Enforceable Termination Clause, Tips Are Owed as Part of Termination Pay

Without an enforceable clause in an employment contract which limits reasonable notice to only the ESA minimums, the Ontario Courts ignore the strict wording of the ESA and require employers to pay tips as part of wrongful termination pay.

We can see an example of this in the case of Giacomo Violo v. Delphi Communications, Incorporated. Violo had worked as a waiter and bartender for a small restaurant in Ontario for 29 years. At the time of his termination, he was 51 years old. The parties did not have an employment contract, and the restaurant contended that Violo had been legally terminated due to excessive tardiness, alcohol abuse, and discourteous behaviour. After examining the evidence, including work records from the defendant and testimony from current employees, the Court determined that “there was no cause for the plaintiff’s dismissal.” The Court then turned to the issue of determining the reasonable notice period Violo was due. After examining numerous factors, including Violo’s age and the availability of similar jobs at the time he was terminated, the Court determined Violo was entitled to a reasonable notice period of 15 months. The Court then addressed the issue of damages, noting that tips would be factored in as such wages constituted a significant portion of his overall income: “… in 2010 he claimed $9,025 in tip income, almost as much as his income from wages.” In total, Violo was awarded $45,250, representative of his base salary and tips over the course of the 15 month notice period.

Final Thoughts

For employers, it is important to have a valid written employment contract with all bartenders, waiters, and waitresses. While the amount of notice cannot be below the minimum amount required by the ESA, employers can fashion contracts which provide for less notice than the employee would otherwise be entitled to at common law. When it comes to employees who receive customary tips, this can mean a substantial difference in the amount of termination pay. If you need assistance drafting employment contracts, we strongly recommend that you speak to an experienced employment attorney for guidance and assistance.

For terminated employees who received tips as a significant portion of their overall income, it is crucial to remember that they likely have rights under the common law that are far greater than the rights afforded to them under the ESA. It may be best for liquor servers and waitresses to sue their former employer in court for “wrongful dismissal,” seeking additional damages which would include tips. If you have been recently terminated from a position where you received tips as part of your income, we suggest that you speak to an employment attorney to help you determine the best course of action for your situation.


Contact Justin W. Anisman

Contact Justin W. Anisman, the author of this blog, about any employment law related questions or issues you may be facing. Call 416-304-7005 or email him at janisman@btlegal.ca.

Justin W. Anisman is an Employment Lawyer at the Toronto law firm Brauti Thorning LLP. Justin advises both companies and individuals in all aspects of employment law including wrongful dismissal, human rights and discrimination.


The publications made on this website are provided and intended for general introductory information purposes only. They do not constitute legal or other professional advice, or an opinion of any kind. Speak to a professional before making decisions about your own particular circumstances.

How to Change Employment Contracts

Anytime you ask an existing employee to sign a new employment contract, it’s important to proceed cautiously. There are risks and pitfalls that wary employers may wish to avoid when making a change to their employment contracts. A misgauged approach may result in an unenforceable contract, or worse, result in a costly claim of constructive dismissal.

As set out below, the Ontario Courts have clarified generally two methods to change employment contracts. The first method is for when an employee consents and agrees to the changes, and the second is how to change employment contracts when the employee refuses.

Read more

Arbitration Clause in Employment Contract puts the Breaks on the Uber Class Action in Ontario

The Ontario Court has confirmed that an arbitration clause in an employment contract is generally enforceable.

Much to the chagrin of Mr. Heller and his lawyers in the proposed class action brought against Uber, Justice Perell of Ontario Superior Court of Justice stayed the lawsuit against Uber. As a result, Uber drivers in Ontario that want to sue for their rights under the Employment Standards Act, 2002 will need to do so by way of Arbitration in the Netherlands.

In the lawsuit of Heller v. Uber Technologies Inc., Heller, the proposed class plaintiff for Uber drivers across Ontario, sued Uber for a finding that they were employees, not independent contractors. If correct, then Uber drivers would be entitled to all the benefits granted to employees under the Employment Standards Act. Uber brought a motion to stay the action in Ontario—effectively ending the law suit—on the basis that when Uber drivers signed up on the “Uber App”, they clicked accept to a long list of terms and conditions that included the following clause:

Except as otherwise set forth in this Agreement, this Agreement shall be exclusively governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Netherlands, excluding its rules on the conflict of laws. The Vienna Convention on the International Sale of Goods 1980 (CISG) shall not apply. Any dispute, conflict or controversy, howsoever arising out of or broadly in connection with or relating to this Agreement, including relating to its validity, its construction or its enforceability, shall be first mandatorily submitted to mediation proceedings under the International Chamber of Commerce Mediation Rules (“ICC Mediation Rules”). If such a dispute has not been settled within sixty (60) days after a request for mediation has been submitted under such ICC Mediation Rules, such dispute can be referred to and shall be exclusively and finally resolved by arbitration under the Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC Arbitration Rules”) …. The Place of the arbitration shall be Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

After finding that the International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, applies the Court considered:

  1. Whether the Competence-Competence Principle applied? or
  2. Whether there was some other reason to refuse to send the matter to arbitration.

The Competence-Competence principle holds that in general “a challenge to the arbitrator’s jurisdiction should be first resolved by the arbitrator.” The Court found that this principle did apply and that there were no exception to rely on that would benefit Mr. Heller. The Court held that the arbitration provision was not illegal for being unconscionable.

In short, Mr. Heller’s argument was summarized as follows:

it would be an absurd result and contrary to public policy to enforce an arbitration agreement in an employment contract and thereby deny vulnerable non-unionized employees their rights and protections under the Employment Standards Act, 2000, which precludes employees contracting out of their rights under the Act.

The Court reasoned that it was their role to interpret statute and not enact it and the Employment Standards Act does not, unlike the Consumer Protection Act, preclude arbitration clauses. Therefore, the Court held that the class action lawsuit should be stayed as a result of the arbitration clause in the employment contract, “be the result absurd public policy or not.”

What is the take away?

The decision of Heller v. Uber Technologies Inc., 2018 ONSC 718, confirms that Arbitration clauses in employment agreements are generally enforceable.


Contact Justin W. Anisman

Contact Justin W. Anisman, the author of this blog, about any employment law related questions or issues you may be facing. Call 416-304-7005 or email him at janisman@btzlaw.ca.

Justin W. Anisman is an Employment Lawyer at the Toronto law firm Brauti Thorning Zibarras LLP. Justin advises both companies and individuals in all aspects of employment law including wrongful dismissal, human rights and discrimination.


The publications made on this website are provided and intended for general introductory information purposes only. They do not constitute legal or other professional advice, or an opinion of any kind. Speak to a professional before making decisions about your own particular circumstances.

You might want to hire an employment lawyer before your next employee

Many Ontario employers think they’re saving money by copying an employment contract off the internet or hiring employees without one. What many believe to be a clever move soon realize it may have been a penny wise, but a pound foolish. A well written employment contract, as most might have guessed, often conveys significant advantages to employers. On the other hand, the absence of an employment contract or a poorly drafted one, often entitles terminated employees to significant common law notice periods.

Read more