Client Update: Professional Partnerships Breathe Easier
This morning the Supreme Court of Canada released its much awaited decision in McCormick v. Fasken Martineau DuMoulin, holding that most legal (and other professional) partnerships are not subject to Human Rights obligations to partners, because there is no “employment relationship” between a firm and its partners. In the Fasken’s case, the issue was the partnership provision which required an equity partner to retire at age 65, a provision common in most professional partnerships. While partners were subject to various policies and administrative rules, the Supreme Court formulated the analysis as one of control and dependency:
…the test is who is responsible for determining working conditions and financial benefits and to what extent does a worker have an influential say in those determinations?
The Court very strongly expressed the view that in most partnerships equity partners have a right to participate meaningfully in the decision making process. The partner in question was “part of the group that controlled the partnership, not a person vulnerable to its control.”
The Supreme Court noted that in some jurisdictions – most notably the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand – there are specific statutory provisions which make employment legislation (including Human Rights) applicable to partnerships. The Court noted also the duty of fairness and good faith specifically set out in the B.C. Partnership Act but then added that it would be difficult to see how that duty could preclude a partnership from instituting a mandatory retirement policy “designed to benefit all partners by ensuring the regenerative turnover of partnership shares”.
One final note: professional partnerships must still take care that not too many energized senior partners “jump ship” late in their careers.
Level Chan and Dante Manna As 2018 comes to an end, we countdown some pension and employee benefits developments in the last year that we anticipate may lead to developments in 2019. Discrimination in benefits…Read More
Kevin Landry The first look at regulations for cannabis edibles, extracts and topicals has arrived. The Federal Government has opened a 60-day consultation period respecting the strict regulation of additional cannabis products. Notice of the consultation was accompanied…Read More
Erin Best and Kara Harrington “This case is about pain, how it was caused, by what accident and the opinions of dueling experts.”¹ “In this case, like so many, the assessment of the evidence depends…Read More
Jonathan Coady and Michael Fleischmann Overview Once again, the time has come to review the year that was and to chart the course for the year ahead. For municipalities, developers and planning professionals throughout Prince…Read More
Following the various Stakeholder Consultations (which Stewart McKelvey participated in on behalf of Nova Scotia Employers), the Government has changed the Labour Standards Code Regulations effective January 1, 2019 to: a) provide for up to…Read More
Version française à suivre Sara Espinal Henao Canada has expanded its permanent and temporary immigration requirements to include biometrics – the measurement of unique physical characteristics, such as fingerprints and facial features. The new requirements,…Read More
Many businesses rely on trade-mark, copyright, and patent law for the protection of their intellectual property (IP). The Federal Government recently proposed changes to IP laws, which may impact your business. Bill C-86, Budget Implementation Act,…Read More
Julia Parent and David Wedlake (special thanks to Graham Haynes for his assistance) In a rare decision from the bench, the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) allowed the appeal of Callidus Capital Corporation in the matter…Read More
Mark Tector and Killian McParland ‘Tis again the season for the company holiday party. And while the party planners are starting to break out the eggnog, there are some lessons learned from seasons past to…Read More
Mark Tector and Richard Jordan The Nova Scotia Occupational Health and Safety Act (the “Act”) provides that “contractors” and “constructors” have similar, but not identical, responsibilities, with a “Constructor” having greater authority and more responsibility for the health and…Read More