Skip to content

Change to Ontario Employment Standards: IT consultants and business consultants excluded from ESA

Mark Tector and Ben Currie

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:

  1. 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.

  1. 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);
  2. 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
  3. 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.

SHARE

Archive

Search Archive


 
 

Client Update: Universal interest arbitration proposed for New Brunswick

April 5, 2016

On March 29, 2016, the Province of New Brunswick tabled proposed changes to the Industrial Relations Act and the Public Services Labour Relations Act. If passed, these changes would dramatically alter well-established principles of private sector collective bargaining.…

Read More

Good Faith Fisheries: New case on Crown consultation & regulation of Aboriginal fisheries

March 22, 2016

By Jennifer Taylor Why is this case a big deal? It started with two salmon. Now, after several years of litigation, the Nova Scotia Provincial Court in R v Martin, 2016 NSPC 14 has stayed proceedings against…

Read More

Atlantic Employers’ Counsel – Winter 2016

March 10, 2016

THE EDITORS’ CORNER Michelle Black and Sean Kelly One day, the line between mental and physical disabilities may not be so pronounced, but, for now, distinctions are still drawn between Employee A with, for example, diabetes and…

Read More

Hiring the “Right” Employee

February 24, 2016

By Lisa Gallivan Employees can be your biggest asset, if you hire the right people. This can often be one of the biggest decisions that you make as a business owner or employer. The “right” employee…

Read More

Bye, Bye Canadian P.I.?: What Apple’s fight against the FBI means for the protection of Personal Information in Canada

February 23, 2016

By Burtley Francis and Kathleen Leighton Order Up: Apple, P.I. Recently, the public safety versus personal privacy debate has been brought to main headlines. Apple is facing a court order (available here) requiring the company to assist the FBI in the investigation of…

Read More

Client Update: Outlook for the 2016 Proxy Season

February 12, 2016

In preparing for the 2016 proxy season, you should be aware of some regulatory changes and institutional investor guidance that may impact disclosure to and interactions with your shareholders. This update highlights what is new…

Read More

Left Sharks and Copy Cats: The Super Bowl’s Impact on Protecting a Brand

February 5, 2016

By Burtley Francis and Michael MacIsaac You remember Left Shark… The Super Bowl is a lot of things to a lot of people and is arguably the most anticipated event of the year that is not a holiday…

Read More

The Labour Relations of First Nations’ Fisheries: Who gets to decide?

February 2, 2016

By Jennifer Taylor Summary The Canada Industrial Relations Board recently held that it had no jurisdiction as a federal board to certify a bargaining unit comprised of fisheries employees of the Waycobah First Nation. The decision…

Read More

Can an employer prohibit tattoos and piercings?

January 21, 2016

By Peter McLellan, QC In the 1970s the issue for employers was long hair and sideburns. In the 1980’s it was earrings for men. Today the employer’s concerns are with tattoos and facial piercings. What are…

Read More

Settling for it: Two new NS decisions on settlement agreements and releases

January 15, 2016

By Jennifer Taylor Introduction It sounds simple: Two disputing parties, hoping to resolve their disagreement without drawn-out court proceedings, will mutually agree to a settlement on clear terms; release each other from all claims; and move…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top