Taxpayer controlled use of trucks which strongly indicated existence of employment contract

Tax – Income Tax – Employment income

Taxpayer, who was truck driver, was offered work for company to deliver merchandise to grocery store chain. At time he was offered work, he was sole operator and could not handle all of routes, so he posted ad on Kijiji looking for additional truckers. Three drivers answered and entered into verbal agreement with taxpayer, and it was understood they would work as independent contractors. Drivers used taxpayer's trucks and had to maintain daily logs of hours, mileage and activities, including route taken. Drivers were assigned dedicated routes and dedicated trucks, and they did not have to pay for fuel, oil, maintenance, repairs, truck insurance, cargo insurance, licensing or anything else. Drivers were required to take three-day mandatory training program before they could start work. Minister determined that drivers were employees of taxpayer and that their employment was insurable under paragraph 5(1)(a) of Employment Insurance Act during period of employment. Taxpayer appealed. Appeal dismissed. Drivers were subordinate to and under control of taxpayer and this factor was practically conclusive of existence of contract of employment between taxpayer and drivers. Drivers really did not have much discretion in exercise of their duties to taxpayer, as they were in effect told what to do and all drivers had to undergo mandatory three-day training period before they could even start work. Taxpayer controlled use of trucks and in so doing, taxpayer controlled work of drivers, and this factor strongly indicated existence of employment contract. Only “tool or equipment” that was required was truck and this very expensive equipment belonged to taxpayer and not drivers. Drivers invested nothing into business of trucking for taxpayers other than their time and ability to drive truck, and this factor also suggested contract of employment.

9267-2245 Quebec Inc. v. M.N.R. (2020), 2020 CarswellNat 162, 2020 TCC 10, Rommel G. Masse D.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

Law Society Convocation approves new policy on bencher information requests

Relocation disputes surge in family law litigation, says Lerners LLP’s Ryan McNeil

Ont. CA confirms future harm risk not compensable in contaminated medication class action

Law Commission of Ontario announces new board of governors appointments

Ontario Superior Court upholds ‘fair dealing’ in franchise dispute

Ontario Superior Court orders retrial for catastrophic impairment case due to procedural unfairness

Most Read Articles

Relocation disputes surge in family law litigation, says Lerners LLP’s Ryan McNeil

Law Commission of Ontario announces new board of governors appointments

Ontario Superior Court denies late motion to transfer car accident case to simplified procedure

LEAF celebrates 39 years fighting gender-based discrimination at annual Evening for Equality gala