The Alberta Motor Association (the Payor) carried on a business of training and providing instruction to individuals who wanted to obtain vehicle operator’s licences. Mr. Bourne (the Appellant) had an arrangement with the Payor to provide such instruction. The Payor had treated Mr. Bourne as an independent contractor from 2018 to 2020. Mr. Bourne was claiming that he was an employee of the Alberta Motor Association in 2020. Should Mr. Bourne be viewed as an employee of the Alberta Motor Association or, alternatively, an independent contractor? List all of the factors that should be considered in reaching a conclusion. The facts in this case are as follows: • the Payor operated as a membership based association; (admitted) • the Payor had clients who wanted to obtain motor vehicle operator’s licences; (admitted) • the Appellant was hired as a driving instructor; (admitted) • the Appellant entered into a written contract with the Payor stating that the Appellant was a contractor and not an employee; • the Appellant had been under contract with the Payor since 2018; • the Appellant earned a set fee of $26 per hour; • the Appellant also received fees for new bookings, student home pickups, and a fuel subsidy; • the Appellant invoiced the Payor; • the Appellant did not receive any employee benefits such as health, dental, or vacation pay; • the Payor did not guarantee the Appellant a minimum amount of pay; • the Payor’s hours of operation were from 8:00AM to 5:00PM, Monday to Saturday; • the Appellant set his own schedule of hours and days of work; • the Appellant could work anytime between 8:00AM and 10:00PM, Monday to Sunday; • the Appellant did not have a set minimum number of hours of work required; • the Appellant kept a record of his hours worked; • the Payor provided the Appellant with the names of the students; • the Appellant contacted the students and scheduled the road instruction; • the Payor provided the Appellant with an in-vehicle lesson guide; • the Appellant chose the routes for the lessons; • the Appellant was able to hire his own helper for administrative tasks; • the Appellant provided the major tool, which was the vehicle; • the Payor provided vehicle signage, mirrors, traffic cones, and an emergency brake; • the Appellant paid for the installation and removal of the emergency brake provided by the Payor; • the Appellant incurred operating expenses, including vehicle expenses, liability insurance, and a driver training endorsement; • the Appellant’s vehicle expenses included insurance, maintenance, and fuel; • the Payor’s intention was that the Appellant was a contractor and not an employee; • the Appellant had a GST number; • the Appellant charged the Payor GST; • the Appellant had operated his own taxi business since 2002; • the Appellant maintained his own business books and records; • the Appellant declared business income and business expenses on his 2018, 2019, and 2020 income tax returns..
The Alberta Motor Association (the Payor) carried on a business of training and providing instruction to individuals who wanted to obtain vehicle operator’s licences. Mr. Bourne (the Appellant) had an arrangement with the Payor to provide such instruction. The Payor had treated Mr. Bourne as an independent contractor from 2018 to 2020. Mr. Bourne was claiming that he was an employee of the Alberta Motor Association in 2020.
Should Mr. Bourne be viewed as an employee of the Alberta Motor Association or, alternatively, an independent contractor? List all of the factors that should be considered in reaching a conclusion.
The facts in this case are as follows:
• the Payor operated as a membership based association; (admitted)
• the Payor had clients who wanted to obtain motor vehicle operator’s licences; (admitted)
• the Appellant was hired as a driving instructor; (admitted)
• the Appellant entered into a written contract with the Payor stating that the Appellant was a contractor and not an employee;
• the Appellant had been under contract with the Payor since 2018;
• the Appellant earned a set fee of $26 per hour;
• the Appellant also received fees for new bookings, student home pickups, and a fuel subsidy;
• the Appellant invoiced the Payor;
• the Appellant did not receive any employee benefits such as health, dental, or vacation pay;
• the Payor did not guarantee the Appellant a minimum amount of pay;
• the Payor’s hours of operation were from 8:00AM to 5:00PM, Monday to Saturday;
• the Appellant set his own schedule of hours and days of work;
• the Appellant could work anytime between 8:00AM and 10:00PM, Monday to Sunday;
• the Appellant did not have a set minimum number of hours of work required;
• the Appellant kept a record of his hours worked;
• the Payor provided the Appellant with the names of the students;
• the Appellant contacted the students and scheduled the road instruction;
• the Payor provided the Appellant with an in-vehicle lesson guide;
• the Appellant chose the routes for the lessons;
• the Appellant was able to hire his own helper for administrative tasks;
• the Appellant provided the major tool, which was the vehicle;
• the Payor provided vehicle signage, mirrors, traffic cones, and an emergency brake;
• the Appellant paid for the installation and removal of the emergency brake provided by the Payor;
• the Appellant incurred operating expenses, including vehicle expenses, liability insurance, and a driver training endorsement;
• the Appellant’s vehicle expenses included insurance, maintenance, and fuel;
• the Payor’s intention was that the Appellant was a contractor and not an employee;
• the Appellant had a GST number;
• the Appellant charged the Payor GST;
• the Appellant had operated his own taxi business since 2002;
• the Appellant maintained his own business books and records;
• the Appellant declared business income and business expenses on his 2018, 2019, and 2020 income tax returns..
Step by step
Solved in 3 steps
