“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.
Jennifer Taylor and Bhreagh Ross In the recent Reference re Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act (“GGPPA Reference”), the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously agreed that climate change is real and dangerous.…Read More
We are pleased to present the fifth installment of Beyond the border, a publication aimed at providing the latest information to clients about new programs and other immigration-related information that may be pertinent to employers of…Read More
Richard Jordan 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…Read More
Kevin Landry and William Wojcik In September 2020 the Supreme Court of Canada heard Reference re Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, 2021 SCC 11, a case featuring appeals from Ontario, Saskatchewan, and Alberta with respect to…Read More
Christopher Marr, TEP and David Slipp Effective March 1, 2021 in all provinces of Canada, other than Ontario and Quebec (to be effective there on July 1, 2021), securities laws related to the distribution of…Read More
Kevin Landry and Emily Murray On March 8, 2021, Health Canada released draft guidance on personal production of cannabis for medical purposes (“Guidance Document”). At present, the Guidance Document is being circulated for public comment for…Read More
Jennifer Taylor The Supreme Court of Nova Scotia has finally provided clarity on the limitation period for third party claims, in Sears v Top O’ the Mountain Apartments Limited, 2021 NSSC 80. This is…Read More
Dante Manna As of today, Newfoundland and Labrador has joined several other jurisdictions with financial hardship unlocking provisions. While the new provisions do not allow direct unlocking from pension plans, and unlocking is not available…Read More