Canadian Law of Work Forum (CLWF)
  • Home
  • About
    • Professor David Doorey
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Submissions
  • Student Blog Initiative
  • Home
  • About
    • Professor David Doorey
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Submissions
  • Student Blog Initiative
Canadian Law of Work Forum (CLWF)
Law of Work Archive

Court of Appeal on Need to Consider Employee Vulnerability in Interpretation of Contracts

by David Doorey January 31, 2012
written by David Doorey January 31, 2012

A 2008 decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal came up in my Employment Law class recently that I thought I would comment on.  Nothing in it is particularly novel, but there is some nice language by the Court about how inequality of bargaining power nowadays influences the interpretation of the employment contract.   It considers two central questions:

1.  How do you distinguish an employee from an independent contractor?
2. How can an employer change the notice term in the contract from “reasonable notice” to a fixed (lesser) amount?

The case is called Braiden v. La-Z-Boy, a decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal.
Key Facts
This is a typical situation of a company attempting to avoid the costs and legal responsibilities of employing someone by trying to treat the worker as an “independent contractor” rather than an employee.  Courts are suspicious of these attempts, because the judges recognize that the workers usually are given a choice of agreeing they are self-employed, or losing their job. That is problematic for modern judges who perceive the employment contract as one open to exploitation owing to the power imbalance between the parties.  If employers could simply write into every contract that a worker “is an independent contractor”, then we could witness the end of the employment relationship.
La-Z-Boy drafted a contract that said Braiden was self-employed and not its employee.   In fact, at one point, they actually ordered him to incorporate a company, and then La-Z-Boy entered into a contract with the corporation.  All of this was designed to allow LaZBoy to avoid employment responsibilities.
However, La-Z-Boy didn’t actually want Braiden to act like he was in business for himself. So it also insisted in the contract that Braiden subject himself to almost complete control of La-Z-Boy.   It wanted to control him. Therefore, it fixed the price he could charge customers for products he sold, and forbade him for working for any other company.  La-Z-Boy also assigned the region he was permitted to sell in, ordered him to attend conferences, and maintained control and ownership over customers.
When LaZBoy decided it didn’t need Braiden any longer, it terminated him by giving the 60 days notice required in the contract between it and Braiden’s corporation.  Braiden sued for wrongful dismissal, arguing: (1)  He was an employee; and (2) the 60 day notice period is unenforceable and he is entitled to “reasonable notice”.   He wins on both accounts at trial.  La-Z-Boy appeals.
Decision of Court of Appeal
The Court affirms the trial judges’ ruling that Braiden was an employee of La-Z-Boy.  After citing Belton v. Liberty Insurance, a similar case, the Court says this:

In many ways, the question posed at the end of the fifth principle – whose business is it? – lies at the heart of the matter. Was the individual carrying on business for him or herself or was the individual carrying on the business of the organization from which he or she was receiving compensation? In my view, given the findings of the trial judge, the answer to that question can only be that Mr. Braiden was carrying on the business of La-Z-Boy.

The Court then considers the notice period issue.  The Trial Judge had ruled that the 60 day notice period in the contract (which La-Z-Boy gave) was less than the minimum wage required by the ESA.  Since the contract notice period was less than the ESA requires, it was void, and therefore reasonable notice is implied (as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Machtinger v. HOJ)   But that is wrong, since Braiden was only entitled to 8 week’s notice under the ESA, which is less than 60 days.  So the Trial judge erred here.
However, the Court of Appeal rules that the 60 day notice period is void for another reason:  lack of consideration. An employer cannot introduce a change to the notice period in an employment contract without getting the employee’s agreement and giving the employee some new consideration–something new of value.  Courts are protective of this requirement, since employees are vulnerable.  Look what the Court says about that:

The requirement of consideration to support a change to the terms of an agreement is especially important in the employment context where, generally, there is inequality of bargaining power between employees and employers. Some employees may enjoy a measure of bargaining power when negotiating the terms of prospective employment but once they have been hired and are dependent on the remuneration of the job, they become more vulnerable. Recognition of this vulnerability is now so firmly embedded in the jurisprudence that it need hardly be recited.

That’s interesting, isn’t it?  It is an explicit rejection of the neoclassical belief that employment contracts are freely entered into exchanges which benefit both parties.  Here, the Court is saying that inequality of bargaining power should shape how employment contracts are interpreted.  The Court’s job is not just to interpret the contract language (“you are an independent contractor”), but to look beyond that language and consider if the employer is taking advantage of the employee for its own benefit.
Here, the employer introduced the 60 day notice term many years into the employment contract.  Before that, Braiden was entitled to the much longer period of “reasonable notice”.  In exchange for this benefit to the employer, Braiden received nothing new of value.  La-Z-Boy argued that its agreement not to fire Braiden was new consideration.  The Court says no way:

…a change in the notice period is a significant modification of the employment agreement, additional consideration is required to support such a modification and continued employment does not constitute something of value flowing to the employee.

In the result, Braiden is entitled to “reasonable notice”, which the Court assessed at 20 months’.  So Braiden wins 20 months’ pay, plus $18,500 for legal costs in the Court of Appeal.

Do you agree with the Court’s reasoning in this case?  Should Courts look beyond a contract term specifying that a worker is “an independent contract and not an employee”?
Or should courts just enforce the language put before them?

 

0 comment
0
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEmail
David Doorey

Professor Doorey is an Associate Professor of Work Law and Industrial Relations at York University. He is the Director of the School of HRM at York and Director of Osgoode Hall Law School’s executive LLM Program in Labour and Employment Law and on the Advisory Board of the Osgoode Certificate program in Labour Law. He is a Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School’s Labor and Worklife Program and a member of the International Advisory Committee on Harvard University’s Clean Slate Project, which is re-imaging labor law for the 21st century

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

previous post
Should Professors Boycott Apple's New Electronic Textbook Platform?
next post
Is Manitoba's Model the Solution for Work Stoppages?

You may also like

A Cross Country Update on the Card-Check versus...

October 3, 2018

A Successful Strike Vote is All That Stands...

September 16, 2018

Unifor Posts Photos of Replacement Workers as Gander...

September 10, 2018

A Wrongful Dismissal Case and the Absence of...

August 29, 2018

China Said to Quickly Withdraw Approval for New...

August 27, 2018

The Latest Hot E-Commerce Idea in China: The...

August 27, 2018

The Trump Administration Just Did Something Unambiguously Good...

August 27, 2018

Unstable Situations Require Police In Riot Gear Face...

August 27, 2018

Trump’s War on the Justice System Threatens to...

August 27, 2018

Putin Invites Trump to Moscow for Second Meeting...

August 27, 2018

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 218 other subscribers

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

CLWFFollow

CLWF
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
RSandillRicha Sandill@RSandill·
7h

@SCLSclinic and I were so fortunate to represent this client last year. I am thrilled that this decision brings more clarity for family status accommodations rights amidst a pandemic that has tested parents, caregivers, and families like never before. https://twitter.com/CanLawWorkForum/status/1364605259071561730

CLWF@CanLawWorkForum

New from @RSandill (counsel for applicant), discussing important new "family status" discrimination decision from OHRT:

"Kovintharajah v. Paragon Linen & Laundry: When Failure to Accommodate Child Care Needs is “Family Status” Discrimination"

https://lawofwork.ca/13360-2/

Reply on Twitter 1364627677785821185Retweet on Twitter 13646276777858211851Like on Twitter 13646276777858211852Twitter 1364627677785821185
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey@TheLawofWork·
7h

Here's my latest in @jacobinmag.

If Ontario's labor laws applied in Alabama, the Amazon vote would have been held months ago so workers could get back to their jobs. Instead, the NLRA permits Amazon to conduct a months' long onslaught of anti-union propaganda. https://twitter.com/jacobinmag/status/1364613560425275392

Jacobin@jacobinmag

Amazon workers in Alabama are voting on whether to unionize, but the company is bombarding them with anti-union propaganda. In Canada, by contrast, votes are held quickly, making it harder for companies to stack the deck — a model that can work in the US. http://jacobinmag.com/2021/02/amazon-alabama-canada-labor-law-union-vote

Reply on Twitter 1364623976174092316Retweet on Twitter 13646239761740923168Like on Twitter 136462397617409231613Twitter 1364623976174092316
CanLawWorkForumCLWF@CanLawWorkForum·
8h

New from @RSandill (counsel for applicant), discussing important new "family status" discrimination decision from OHRT:

"Kovintharajah v. Paragon Linen & Laundry: When Failure to Accommodate Child Care Needs is “Family Status” Discrimination"

https://lawofwork.ca/13360-2/

Reply on Twitter 1364605259071561730Retweet on Twitter 13646052590715617304Like on Twitter 13646052590715617304Twitter 1364605259071561730
Load More...

Categories

  • Alberta
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Australia
  • British Columbia
  • Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • Childcare
  • Class Action
  • Collective Bargaining
  • Common Law of Employment
  • Comparative Work Law
  • competition law
  • construction
  • COVID-19
  • Diversity
  • Employee Classification
  • Employment Insurance
  • Employment Regulation
  • Europe
  • Financial Industry
  • Fissured Work
  • Freedom of Association
  • frustration of contract
  • Gig Work
  • Health and Safety
  • Health Care
  • Human Rights
  • Immigration
  • Interest Arbitration
  • International Law
  • Labour Arbitration
  • Labour Economics
  • Law of Work Archive
  • Legal Profession
  • Manitoba
  • Migrant Workers
  • Minimum Wage
  • Nova Scotia
  • OLRB
  • Ontario
  • Pension Bankruptcy
  • Privacy
  • Public Sector
  • Quebec
  • Real Life Pleadings
  • Saskatchewan
  • Scholarship
  • Strikes and Lockouts
  • Student Post
  • Supreme Court of Canada
  • technology
  • Transnational Law
  • Uncategorized
  • Unions and Collective Bargaining
  • United States
  • Videos
  • Women and Work
  • Wrongful Dismissal
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive
Menu
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive

2020. Canadian Law of Work Forum. All Rights Reserved.