Misclassification of Workers - Articles & Videos

If you thought the Driver Inc. controversy was just background noise in the trucking industry, think again. The government is stepping up enforcement in a big way, and businesses that have turned a blind eye to worker misclassification could soon find themselves in the hot seat — facing hefty fines, back payments, and legal exposure. Let’s be clear: this isn’t just a “trucking problem.” It’s a worker misclassification problem, and it’s about to land squarely on the desks of employers and workers alike.

A dependent contractor typically has a higher degree of autonomy and financial risk than an employee but is economically dependent on the employer as their source of a substantial majority of their income.

A recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal is an important reminder of how costly fixed term agreements can be for businesses when they are not used correctly.

In Liebreich v. Farmers of North America, the employer was ordered to pay damages to a worker after the Court held that the worker was, in fact, a dependent contractor and not an independent contractor as alleged by the employer.

A landmark decision by the Supreme Court of Canada has created hope for gig workers across the country as it allowed a class action to proceed seeking confirmation that Uber drivers are actually employees.

The question of independent contractor versus employee has been a hot topic in the world of employment law for years now, and one that frequently makes news outside of legal circles. In a post for Canadian HR Reporter last year, we looked at the case of a Domino’s Pizza driver who gained publicity when the Ministry of Labour accepted his complaint, and determined that he was actually an employee and not an independent contractor. That driver was issued back pay to partially compensate for the misclassification.

Employment relationships are not always black and white, even if there is a written agreement between both parties. Such relationships…