https://decisia.lexum.com/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/310824/index.do
Lyon v. The Queen (May 8, 2018 – 2018 TCC 89, Smith J.).
Précis: Ms. Lyons started as a part-time receptionist and clerical worker at the Kinetica Health Group. Subsequently she also became a part-time Pilates Instructor and rehabilitation aide. The Court found that while the parties might have intended to have an independent contractor relationship the facts did not support that conclusion. The Court found that applying the well-known tests for employment relationships Ms. Lyon was clearly an employee for the purposes of the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Pension Plan.
Decision: The Court found that the argument that Ms. Lyons was an independent contractor was “fundamentally flawed”:
[70] This appeal concerns the years 2015 and 2016. However, the entire history of the working relationship between the Appellant and Dr. Tzakas is relevant in so far as there appears be no correlation between the express intention of the parties about what their legal relationship would be and the actual underlying reality of that relationship.
[71] It appears likely that the Appellant was lead to believe that she could be an independent contractor if she agreed and chose to do so, even as she was assuming clerical and administrative duties and paid at an hourly rate at the commencement of the working relationship in 2008.
[72] The implication of this analysis is that even as the relationship progressed and the Appellant assumed greater responsibilities as a rehabilitative assistant and later, as a Certified Pilates Instructor, the express intention of the parties as to the nature of their relationship was fundamentally flawed from the beginning and should be disregarded in favour of the objective factors noted above.
[73] Having completed an analysis of the evidence in light of the Wiebe Door factors, the Court concludes that the Appellant was employed under a contract of services during the relevant period. For that reason, the appeals must be allowed.