Judge finds significant employer control over worker's activities, awards 22 months' notice
The King's Bench for Saskatchewan dealt with an employment case where a worker claimed they were wrongfully classified as an independent contractor despite a 17-year working relationship.
The worker argued they were entitled to reasonable notice upon termination, while their employer maintained no such obligation existed.
The case highlighted key employment law questions about worker classification and reasonable notice requirements.
After COVID-19 affected the organisation's operations, the dispute centred on whether long-term service and degree of control over work arrangements could override payment structures in determining employment status.
Employer’s reorganisation due to COVID-19
On March 9, 2021, the vice-president of a minor basketball organisation informed their executive director that COVID-19's negative effects forced them to reorganise.
The worker's role would end, though they agreed to extend it until May 31, 2021. The worker sought legal counsel and argued for 24 months' reasonable notice, but the organisation responded that they were an independent contractor, triggering the legal proceedings.
The working relationship started around 2004-2005, when the worker joined as an administrative assistant.
Over nearly 17 years, they advanced through positions including executive assistant, programs and communications coordinator, and finally executive director.
Employer’s ‘control’ over the worker
Each year, the organisation sent contracts that typically remained unsigned. The court noted: "[The contract] was essentially a diktat communicated by [the employer] to [the worker]. Presumably she had a right to object to the terms, but she did not."
The organisation maintained strict control through non-compete clauses and required approval for any outside work.
As stated in court documents: "[The worker], in fact, devoted all her time and attention to [the employer's] organisation and only worked for them."
Determining independent contractor status
While the worker submitted monthly invoices and handled GST payments, the court found this didn't automatically indicate independent contractor status.
The judge explained this was simply the payment procedure the previous executive director had established.
The court referenced key precedent: "The central question is whether the person who has been engaged to perform the services is performing them as a person in business on [their] own account."
When ending the worker's role, the organisation offered two options: a three-month short-term position or applying for a restructured role requiring bookkeeping skills the worker didn't possess. They later offered six weeks' severance pay.
The court emphasised: "Where an employment contract fails to comply with the minimum notice periods set out in the Act, [the worker] can only be dismissed without cause if [they are] given reasonable notice of termination."
‘Significant control’ over worker
The judge found significant employer control over the worker's activities: "[The employer] exercised significant control over [the worker], [they] had no ability to profit, and had no significant financial risks nor investments in the relationship."
The court awarded 22 months' notice, reduced to 19 months after accounting for working notice. While recognising the organisation's non-profit status and COVID-19 challenges, the judge stated:
"There is no question that the termination of [the worker's] contract could have been handled with more clerical exactitude. However, there is absolutely no evidence, or even suggestion, that [the employer] evidenced or manifested any animus vis-à-vis [the worker]."
The decision included costs of $3,000 and allowed 60 days before enforcement proceedings could begin.