In the recent Court of Appeal's decision in
Keenan v. Canac Kitchens, employers are
again reminded of the potential liabilities associated with
cavalier characterization of workers as "independent
Mr. and Mrs. Keenan worked for Canac as "Delivery and
Installation Leaders" for 32 and 25 years in duration,
respectively. At some point, Canac had characterized them as (and
they signed contracts as) "independent contractors".
When Canac terminated its relationship with the Keenans in March
2009, it did not provide them with any notice of termination or
payments instead, consistent with their characterization as
independent operators. The Keenans sued.
Both at trial and appeal, the Court found that the Keenans had
been sufficiently "economically dependent" on Canac
(between 75% and 95% of their gross income, depending on the year)
so as to be "dependent" contractors and therefore
entitled to reasonable notice of termination or pay instead, just
like regular employees.
The Court of Appeal further upheld the trial Judge's
assessment of damages on the basis of 26 months' pay in lieu of
notice. Having lost its appeal, Canac was further ordered to pay
the Keenans $24,000.00 in reimbursement of legal costs (in addition
to whatever costs Canac was already ordered to pay, having lost at
This case serves as a sobering alarm bell for employers who are
using "independent" contractors on a sufficiently
exclusive basis to render them "dependent" contractors or
even "employees" for severance and other statutory
Prudent employers will consider minimizing these risks either by
using contracts with binding termination clauses limiting
contractors' entitlements on termination, or perhaps even by
altering existing contractors' status and "putting them on
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
Unfortunately, reasonable accommodation for employees in the workplace continues to be the source of significant litigation and even today we continue to see outrageous examples of employers behaving badly.
A former teacher at Bodwell High School has learned a valuable lesson from the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal— it is not discriminatory for an employer to offer child-related benefits to only employees with children.
We are now beginning to see reported cases involving charges and subsequent fines laid against employers for failing to provide information, instruction and supervision to protect a worker from workplace violence.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).