Control factor was akin to employee relationship rather than independent contractor relationship

Tax - Income tax - Employment income

Taxpayer corporation was in business of providing workers to two catering companies, and taxpayer hired supervisors, servers, bartenders and chefs for catering companies. Taxpayer established roster of people by receiving resumes and hired wait staff that worked multiple jobs and most of chefs that worked for taxpayer were career chefs. Taxpayer’s booking coordinator sent email to wait staff to ask to accept or decline shifts and there was no minimum number of shifts guaranteed. At large events, usually one supervisor was required, and head chef would relay instructions to kitchen staff on how end user would like meals served and at what time. Most wait staff had signed independent contract agreement with taxpayer but only few chefs did same. Minister found that taxpayer was placement agency with respect of two workers, and Minister also found that workers of catering company were employees with exception of two workers. Taxpayer appealed. Appeal allowed in part. It was confirmed that workers were employees of taxpayer, but taxpayer’s appeal was allowed in finding that taxpayer was not placement agency with respect to two workers. It was found that control factor in this case was akin to employee relationship rather than independent contractor relationship. Evidence showed that taxpayer and catering companies put mechanisms in place that had effect of exerting control over workers for both small and large events. Taxpayer selected who was offered shift for event and decided which function wait staff would occupy, and head chefs selected chefs who would work at each event and roles they had and this all pointed to employment relationship. As it was found that there was contract of service between taxpayer and workers, there was no need to analyze whether taxpayer was placement agency, and it was found that neither of two employees had been under control of catering companies, although one was found to be only for specific period.

AE Hospitality Ltd. v. M.N.R. (2019), 2019 CarswellNat 2079, 2019 CarswellNat 2557, 2019 TCC 116, 2019 CCI 116, Johanne D'Auray J. (T.C.C. [Employment Insurance]).

Case Law is a weekly summary of notable civil and criminal court decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Canada and all Ontario courts. These cases may be found online in WestlawNext Canada. To subscribe, please visit store.thomsonreuters.ca

Free newsletter

Our newsletter is FREE and keeps you up to date on all the developments in the Ontario legal community. Please enter your email address below to subscribe.

Recent articles & video

How lawyers brought down internet trolls — without ever uncovering their identities

Ontario’s house-poor homeowners could be tempted by fraud and real estate lawyers are on high alert

After viral video, lawyers confirm: Yes, there is a rule against walking across the highway

Insured died before signing settlement agreement — so is it enforceable?

Social media, publicity adds pressure for cash-strapped litigants

Norton Rose Fulbright launches legal tech platform to build bespoke business apps

Most Read Articles

New trial ordered for expelled members of Ethiopian Orthodox Church

Could lawyers’ conduct widen rift with medical evaluators?

Insured died before signing settlement agreement — so is it enforceable?

Ontario’s house-poor homeowners could be tempted by fraud and real estate lawyers are on high alert