McCormick v Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP: 22 May 2014

(Supreme Court of Canada) Human rights – Discrimination – Employment – Age – Law firm partnership agreement containing provision relating to retirement at age 65 – Equity partner filing complaint with Human Rights Tribunal arguing provision constituting age discrimination in employment – Whether equity partner engaged in ’employment relationship’ for purposes of Human Rights Code – Whether complaint comes within jurisdiction of Human Rights Tribunal – Human Rights Code, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 210, ss. 1, 13, 27.
‘Deciding who is in an employment relationship . . means, in essence, examining how two synergetic aspects function in an employment relationship: control exercised by an employer over working conditions and remuneration, and corresponding dependency on the part of a worker. . . The more the work life of individuals is controlled, the greater their dependency and, consequently, their economic, social and psychological vulnerability in the workplace . . ‘
McLachlin C.J. and LeBel, Abella, Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver and Karakatsanis JJ
2014 SCC 39 (CanLII), [2014] 2 SCR 108
Cited by:
CitedUber Bv and Others v Aslam and Others SC 19-Feb-2021
Smartphone App Contractors were as Workers
The court was asked whether the employment tribunal was entitled to find that drivers whose work was arranged through Uber’s smartphone application work for Uber under workers’ contracts and so qualify for the national minimum wage, paid annual . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 February 2021; Ref: scu.658679