The Personal Scope of Employment and Labour-Related Law and Legislation
Distinction between employees and independent for 2 principal reasons: vicarious
liability and wrongful dismissal
Courts have held employers to be vicariously liable to third parties for the negligence of
employees but not of independent contractors.
Held that an implied term of contract of indefinite hiring is that such contracts can be
terminated only by reasonable notice, absent cause, or a binding contractual provision,
but they have not generally implied a right to notice in contracts for service.
Ontario Court of Appeals held in 1936 that the legal categories of employee and
independent contractor did not completely occupy the broader field of contractual
relations for the performance of work.
Case of an
. Master and servant relationship was non-existent,
but where a notice requirement might be implied.
Jurisprudence has been developed to identify cases of non-employment where a
right to termination notice is implied, taking into account factors such as
permanency, exclusivity, investment, risk, and business integration.
In the early 20
century, courts looked primarily at the issue of control over the manner
of doing the work.
Lord Denning’s Organization Test
Focus of this inquiry is the extent to which the work performed is an integral part
of the employer’s business.
Gained widespread acceptance in Canadian courts.
Control continues to be a factor in determining employment status, but what is meant by
control depends on the nature of the work.