Change to Ontario Employment Standards: IT consultants and business consultants excluded from ESA
Effective January 1, 2023, amendments to Ontario’s Employment Standards Act, 2000 (“ESA”) took effect, excluding “business consultants” and “information technology consultants” from the application of the ESA.
This is a significant change, and one which may assist some employers with adapting to changing work arrangements, including dealing with consultants and the legal risks associated with dependent contractors. Based on the recent changes to the ESA, if the following conditions are met, certain “business” or “IT” consultants are exempt from the application of the ESA (i.e. no statutory vacation, no statutory overtime, no statutory notice or severance pay).
The conditions are as follows:
- Definition of Position: The consultant must meet the definition of either “business consultant” or “information technology consultant”, which are as follows:
“Business consultant” is broadly defined as:
an individual who provides advice or services to a business or organization in respect of its performance, including advice or services in respect of the operations, profitability, management, structure, processes, finances, accounting, procurements, human resources, environmental impacts, marketing, risk management, compliance or strategy of the business or organization.
“Information technology consultant” is similarly broadly defined as:
an individual who provides advice or services to a business or organization in respect of its information technology systems, including advice about or services in respect of planning, designing, analyzing, documenting, configuring, developing, testing and installing the business or organization’s information technology systems.
- Provide Services Through a Business: The business or IT consultant must provide services either through a corporation (of which the consultant is either a director or a shareholder subject to a unanimous shareholder agreement), or a sole proprietorship (of which the consultant is the sole proprietor and provides services under a sole proprietorship registered under the Business Names Act);
- Agreement: There is an agreement in place for the consultant’s services that sets out what the consultant will be paid, which must be expressed as an hourly rate and at least $60 per hour excluding bonus, commission, expenses, allowances, and benefits; and
- Payment: The consultant is actually paid the amount set out in the agreement, i.e. at least $60/hr.
There may also be additional requirements prescribed by regulation in the future. Given this change only took effect at the beginning of this month, we await caselaw interpreting the new exclusions. We will also be monitoring whether other provinces follow Ontario’s lead.
Fitting within the new exclusions will require carefully drafted agreements. Contact a Stewart McKelvey employment lawyer for assistance in drafting an agreement, or with any questions related to these or other workplace related legal issues.
This client update is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. If you have any questions about the above, please contact a member of our Labour & Employment group.
Click here to subscribe to Stewart McKelvey Thought Leadership.
Archive
Jennifer Taylor Introduction Appeal courts in Ontario1 and Nova Scotia2 have now issued decisions about Trinity Western University’s proposed law school (“TWU”) in British Columbia, and at first glance they couldn’t be more different. The Court of Appeal for…
Read MoreJoe Thorne1 and Giles Ayers2 Limitation periods serve a critical function in the civil justice system. They promote the timely resolution of litigation on the basis of reliable evidence, and permit litigants to assess their legal exposure…
Read MoreOn July 14, 2016 the Supreme Court of Canada issued a significant decision affecting federally regulated employers across Canada. In Wilson v. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited the Court held that the purpose of the unjust dismissal…
Read MoreOn April 1, 2016 New Brunswick’s Mortgage Brokers Act came into force, requiring businesses acting as mortgage brokerages or as mortgage administrators in New Brunswick to be licensed. A mortgage brokerage is a business that on behalf…
Read MoreIn May 2016, the Federal Court of Canada confirmed that copyright does not protect facts, even where a book’s author is clearly inspired by the content of a film (Maltz v. Witterick, 2016 FC 524 (CanLII)).…
Read MoreBy Jennifer Taylor “…firms of notaries or lawyers…must not be turned into archives for the tax authorities”1 So says the Supreme Court of Canada in one of two highly anticipated decisions on solicitor-client privilege, offering lawyers…
Read MoreJoe Thorne1 and Clara Linegar2 As joint owners of a business, what do you do when the business relationship falls apart? And what if one owner undermines the business in the process? In Smith v Hillier,3 Justice Paquette…
Read MoreThe Supreme Court of Canada has dismissed the appeals in Bruce Brine v. Industrial Alliance Insurance and Financial Services Inc.1 (with costs) and Luciano Branco, et al. v. Zurich Life Insurance Company Limited, et al.(without costs). Both of…
Read MoreOn May 4, 2016, the Nova Scotia Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act (“PRPP Act”) was proclaimed in force, and finalized Pooled Registered Pension Plan Regulations were released. While there were no major changes from the previously released draft regulations, the proposed rules…
Read MoreBy Level Chan and Dante Manna Pooled Registered Pension Plans (“PRPPs”) are closer to becoming a reality for Nova Scotian employers. PRPPs were established by the Federal government in an effort to address the lack of retirement savings…
Read More