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


Search
Generic filters

 
 

Atlantic Construction Counsel – Fall 2009

November 26, 2009

IN THIS ISSUE Contractor Held Liable for Business Interruption: Heyes v. City of Vancouver, 2009 BCSC 651 When Can a Tendering Authority Walk Away if Bids are Too High? Crown Paving Ltd. v. Newfoundland &…

Read More

Client Update – Nova Scotia Unlimited Companies: An Update

November 6, 2009

Withholding tax and other issues under the Fifth Protocol The Fifth Protocol to the Canada-US Tax Convention, 1980 introduced significant changes which may affect the use of most unlimited companies and other so-called ULCs. These…

Read More

Atlantic Employers’ Counsel – Fall 2009

October 14, 2009

IN THIS ISSUE An Eye for an Eye: Alberta Court of Appeal Upholds Finding of Retaliation Liability as a Result of Generosity in Quebec Undue Hardship Established in Scent Case Parents of Twins Get Double…

Read More

Search Archive


Search
Generic filters

Scroll To Top