“Worker” vs “independent operators” distinction clarified in Newfoundland and Labrador workers’ compensation decision
Is a worker under a contract “of” service or contract “for” service? The former means a worker is an employee whereas the latter means a worker is an independent contractor. The answer to that question has significant consequences for employers and workers alike. In the context of the Newfoundland and Labrador Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act (“the Act”), it determines whether employers must pay premiums for its workers, which are often significant.
As some businesses struggle to make ends meet with these rising costs, WorkplaceNL’s Injury Fund is funded by 123.4 per cent from employer premiums.
There has been an increased trend in which employers have to pay premiums for workers properly classified as independent operators – even in contexts where the employers do not even have “workplaces” where workers could be injured. We expect this to become more common as remote workplaces increase.
Stewart McKelvey St. John’s lawyers Twila Reid and John Samms successfully argued before the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Review Division (“WHCRD”) at External Review that insurance sales agents under contract to sell insurance policies to customers are not “workers” as defined under the Act – they were properly considered “Independent Operators”, otherwise known as independent contractors. This result overturned two prior lower level decisions whereby WorkplaceNL and the WHCRD Internal Division held these sales agents were “workers”.
In the decision, the review commissioner determined that that the workers were not “workers” under a contract of service because:
- The employer’s business model was such that the initial sale of insurance was separate and apart from the rest of the business – which was the renewal of already existing business. The role of the agents in the employers business was therefore separate and distinct – the sales agents made first contact, but the employer had the burden of maintaining that business. Viewed through this lens, the first-contact sales agents were not necessarily integral to the business’ success.
- More importantly, the employer did not exercise sufficient control over the agents in how they conducted their business, their right to sell products for multiple companies, and their overhead costs for which they were responsible. The decision is noteworthy and may be of interest to employers across Atlantic Canada given the legislative similarities across Atlantic Canada.
If you feel your business may have been wrongly classified for workers’ compensation purposes, the Labour and Employment group of Stewart McKelvey would be pleased to assist you.
This update is intended for general information only. If you have questions about the above, please contact a member of our Labour & Employment group.
Click here to subscribe to Stewart McKelvey Thought Leadership.
Archive
Kathleen Leighton If you employ an individual who holds a work permit to authorize their work in Canada, you likely have various obligations to adhere to and can face significant consequences if your business is…
Read MoreDavid Constantine and Joe Thorne In the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision in Desgagnés Transport Inc v Wärtsilä Canada Inc, 2019 SCC 58, the court examined how provincial statutes and the federal maritime law…
Read MoreDaniela Bassan Noteworthy cases Keatley Surveying Ltd. v. Teranet Inc., 2019 SCC 43 Considering Crown copyright for the first time, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the dismissal of a class action brought by land…
Read MoreKathleen Leighton Employers in Canada are obligated to only employ individuals who are legally able to work for them. Individuals who are neither citizens nor permanent residents of Canada, but who wish to work in…
Read MoreTwila Reid, Jennifer Taylor and Richard Jordan The Supreme Court of Canada has revolutionized administrative law (again) with its new standard of review decision, Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov. The decision reflects…
Read MoreJonathan Coady, QC and Michael Fleischmann Once again, the time has come to review the year that was and to chart the course for the year ahead. For municipalities and planning professionals in Prince Edward Island,…
Read MoreWe are pleased to present Beyond the border, a quarterly publication aimed at providing the latest information to clients about new programs and other immigration-related information that may be pertinent to employers of foreign workers…
Read MoreWe are pleased to present the fifth issue of Discovery, our very own legal publication targeted to educational institutions in Atlantic Canada. As the pace around campus turns up as universities and colleges begin a…
Read MoreLevel Chan and Dante Manna On October 31, 2019, the Supreme Court of Canada issued its decision in Threlfall v Carleton University, 2019 SCC 50, dismissing an appeal from the Quebec Court of Appeal. Carleton…
Read MoreAndrew Burke, Colleen Keyes and David Slipp Starting January 1, 2020 “Distributing Corporations” under the Canada Business Corporations Act (“CBCA”) will be subject to new disclosure requirements relating to the diversity of directors and senior…
Read More