Dependent Contractor: Difference between revisions
(Created page with "Category:Legal Principles Category:Small Claims ==[http://canlii.ca/t/27551 McKee v. Reid's Heritage Homes Ltd., 2009 ONCA 916 (CanLII)]== D. ANALYSIS (1) Employee v...") |
|||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
==[http://canlii.ca/t/27551 McKee v. Reid's Heritage Homes Ltd., 2009 ONCA 916 (CanLII)]== | ==[http://canlii.ca/t/27551 McKee v. Reid's Heritage Homes Ltd., 2009 ONCA 916 (CanLII)]== | ||
(1) Employee vs. dependent contractor | (1) Employee vs. dependent contractor | ||
[22] RHH submits that the law provides for an intermediate position of “dependent contractor” between employee status and independent contractor status. I agree. The caselaw’s evolution demonstrates the existence of an intermediate category, defined by economic dependency in the work relationship, requiring, inter alia, some reasonable notice for termination. | [22] RHH submits that the law provides for an intermediate position of “dependent contractor” between employee status and independent contractor status. I agree. The caselaw’s evolution demonstrates the existence of an intermediate category, defined by economic dependency in the work relationship, requiring, inter alia, some reasonable notice for termination. | ||
[23] RHH further submits that the trial judge erred in determining that McKee was an employee because a proper application of the law to this case necessitates a conclusion that McKee was a dependent contractor of the sort defined above. For the reasons that follow, I disagree. Although I conclude that a “dependent contractor” category exists, I nevertheless conclude that the existing principles defining the employee category remain intact. Employing these principles, the trial judge concluded that McKee is an employee, a decision for which he is owed substantial deference. | [23] RHH further submits that the trial judge erred in determining that McKee was an employee because a proper application of the law to this case necessitates a conclusion that McKee was a dependent contractor of the sort defined above. For the reasons that follow, I disagree. Although I conclude that a “dependent contractor” category exists, I nevertheless conclude that the existing principles defining the employee category remain intact. Employing these principles, the trial judge concluded that McKee is an employee, a decision for which he is owed substantial deference. | ||
Revision as of 04:21, 23 December 2019
McKee v. Reid's Heritage Homes Ltd., 2009 ONCA 916 (CanLII)
(1) Employee vs. dependent contractor
[22] RHH submits that the law provides for an intermediate position of “dependent contractor” between employee status and independent contractor status. I agree. The caselaw’s evolution demonstrates the existence of an intermediate category, defined by economic dependency in the work relationship, requiring, inter alia, some reasonable notice for termination.
[23] RHH further submits that the trial judge erred in determining that McKee was an employee because a proper application of the law to this case necessitates a conclusion that McKee was a dependent contractor of the sort defined above. For the reasons that follow, I disagree. Although I conclude that a “dependent contractor” category exists, I nevertheless conclude that the existing principles defining the employee category remain intact. Employing these principles, the trial judge concluded that McKee is an employee, a decision for which he is owed substantial deference.
