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)
Employment RegulationFissured WorkQuebecStudent PostSupreme Court of Canada

Supreme Court of Canada on Employment Status, Franchising, and the Quebec Decree Model

by Avinash Pillay May 13, 2020
written by Avinash Pillay May 13, 2020

Written by Avinash Pillay, 1L, Queens Faculty of Law

The COVID-19 outbreak has had a paralyzing effect on Canada’s economy, particularly in the areas of labour and employment.  Prior to being declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO) on March 11, Canada’s national unemployment rate was an estimated 5.6%.  That rate had soared to 13% by April as a result of COVID-19.  Canada lost 1 million jobs in March and another 2 million in April. The need to litigate employment issues is paired to these statistics, as governments have expressed a concern that employees have been denied benefits, renumeration and various other necessities that they would have otherwise been provided.  Many of the protections which have been paramount during the COVID-19 outbreak are inextricably linked to protections that arise as a result of one’s status as an employee.  In a recent case, the Supreme Court of Canada provided some clarity on how courts differentiate between employees and independent contractors in the context of a franchise agreement. 

Protective employment-related standards legislation in Canada grant employees various protections related to overtime, leaves, vacations, layoffs, wages, and termination, among other issues. Canadian governments have also indicated that employers are responsible for the health and safety of their workers, including during COVID-19, social distancing measures. In order to file a claim for these protections, the claimant must first establish that they qualify as an “employee” under the legislation. Although this distinction may appear intuitive, it has been a topic of considerable confusion in Canadian jurisprudence. The question of whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor has deep roots but has attracted considerable renewed attention in recent years with the increased “fissurization” of work relations, including the rise of the “platform” economy and the growth in franchising.  Companies intent on avoiding employment-related responsibilities have attempted to draft contracts that shield them from employment status exclude them from liability. With the rise of COVID-19, the question of whether someone is an “employee” takes on added importance as the distribution of risk and responsibility to implement safety measures may turn on the distinction. 

In July 2019, the Supreme Court of Canada released a landmark decision on the case of Modern Cleaning Concepts v  Comité paritaire de l’entretien d’édifices publics se la region de Quebec. The central issue of this case was how courts should differentiate between an employer and an independent contractor. Modern Cleaning Concepts (“Modern”) provides office cleaning services to Quebec businesses through the use of smaller cleaning agents who are contracted and dispatched to clients through a franchise agreement. Francis Bourque was a small-time cleaning business owner who became a franchisee in 2014. The agreement between Modern and its franchisees provided that:

  1. Bourque has complete control over his operations, meaning that he is liable for all risks and Modern is in no way a guarantor of profitability.
  2. Modern would assign Bourque all of his cleaning contracts.
  3. Bourque is defined as an “independent contractor”
  4. Modern has indemnity from all lawsuits related to the franchise agreement
  5. Modern does not need to give Bourque advanced notice of his cleaning contracts being cancelled
  6. Bourque’s services will be exclusive to his work with Modern
  7. Bourque will not compete with Modern in any way
  8. Bourque must use his own equipment to conduct the cleaning
  9. Bourque must identify himself as a member of Modern at all times
  10. He must report and client complaints to the franchisor
  11. If Modern deems that any of Bourque’s employee’s need to be terminated, this must occur
  12. Modern can perform quality control checks without notice
  13. Any new business opportunity that presents itself must be reported so that Modern can negotiate and assign contractors as they please
  14. Bourque’s name will be on all billing to clients
  15. Modern will pay Bourque through direct deposit, and will take a fee of up to 43%

An interesting aspect of the case for the rest of Canada is that Modern Cleaning was covered by a a “decree” (Decree respecting building service employees in the Quebec region) pursuant to Quebec’s unique “Decree” model (see Act respecting collective agreement decrees).  The “decree” extends a collective agreement to cover all building service companies and their “employees”.  Therefore, the issue in the case was whether Bourque was an “employee” and therefore covered by the decree. Modern Cleaning argued that Bourque, as a franchisee, was not its employee.

After being contracted to clean a government office and four bank branches, Bourque terminated his agreement over a lack of profits and flexibility. Bourque believed that Modern’s franchise agreement was so restrictive that he was essentially their employee despite the clear wording in clause 3. As an employee, he would be entitled to the aforementioned benefits that he was being denied. At trial, it was held that Bourque was not an employee due to his motive of expanding his own business and the clear wording of the contract. The Quebec Court of Appeal overturned this decision, holding that Bourque was an employee of Modern. At the Supreme Court of Canada, this decision was upheld. 

In their analysis, the Supreme Court indicated that the definitions of employer and employee require a large and liberal interpretation since The Decree’s purpose is remedial in nature. The SCC affirmed that simply using the term “contractor” is not dispositive of Bourque actually being one. It was reasoned that what truly matters when making this distinction is the contracts substance, not form. To determine if someone is an employee or a contractor, a court must conduct a fact-specific inquiry that pays careful attention to the meaning and context of the agreement. The factor which is of primary concern is who bears the risk and ability to make profit. It was held that if the worker bears the brunt of the risk and in return reaps increased profits, they are an independent contractor. It is natural for workers to have some degree of risk in their work, but this is not equal to “business risk” as defined by the SCC. Modern’s agreement was classified as a “Tripartite Business Arrangement”. The two types of assignments available in Quebec are a “perfect assignment” (the assignor releases all obligations and the assignee is bound to the client) and an “imperfect assignment” where the assignor does not release their obligations. The fact that Modern uses a Tripartite Business Arrangement paired with an imperfect assignment indicates that Bourque is an employee rather than a contractor. The payments Modern made to him were more in line with a salary than personal business revenue.

The takeaway message from Modern Cleaning Concepts is that workers should not be discouraged from fighting for their rights merely because their employment contract lists them as a “contractor”. Rather, workers should pay attention to who bears the risk and reward of the work to determine if they are in fact an employee. If a worker operating as a franchisee feels that a franchisor has locked them into an agreement that restricts them from conducting business and earning profits, there is a chance that they are protected under employment standards legislation. Having access to legal protections designed to protect employees is especially important for workers today, many of whom are facing potentially life and death decisions each day they report to work during the COVID19 pandemic.  

Avinash Pillay, “Supreme Court of Canada on Employment Status, Franchising, and the Quebec Decree Model” (May 13 2020): https://lawofwork.ca/?p=12491

0 comment
2
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEmail
Avinash Pillay

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

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

previous post
CUPW Alleges that #Foodora Acted Unlawfully by Pulling Out of Canada. Here’s the Complaint.
next post
How Nova Scotia’s Long-Term Care Sector is Failing to Protect Employees During Covid-19

You may also like

Kovintharajah v. Paragon Linen & Laundry: When Failure...

February 24, 2021

Flores v Scotlynn Sweetpac Growers Inc.: Migrant Workers...

February 3, 2021

Prof. Doorey’s Updated Beginners’ Guide to the Charter...

February 1, 2021

Calling the Shots: Is Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination a...

January 29, 2021

Canadian Bar Association Podcast: “After the Pandemic: Protecting...

December 17, 2020

“Autonomous Worker” Regulation

December 1, 2020

Reflecting on the Use of Neutrality Agreements in...

November 27, 2020

Video: Prof. David Doorey and Lawyer Ryan White...

November 26, 2020

What Could Biden’s Labor Secretary Do?

November 12, 2020

Alberta Government Continues Rollback of Worker Protections

November 10, 2020

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·
24 Feb

@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 13646276777858211853Twitter 1364627677785821185
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey@TheLawofWork·
24 Feb

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·
24 Feb

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.