McCormick v. Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP, 2014 SCC 39, [2014] 2 SCR 108 -- summary under Section 96

By services, 28 November, 2015

The appellant was an equity partner at the respondent law firm, whose partnership agreement required retirement at 65. The respondent applied to have the appellant's age discrimination complaint dismissed on the grounds that, as an equity partner, he was not an employee under BC's Human Rights Code.

The Abella J stated (at para. 28) that in making this determination:

Ultimately, the key is the degree of control, that is, the extent to which the worker is subject and subordinate to someone else's decision-making over working conditions and remuneration... .

She then found (at para. 39) that "as an equity partner, he was part of the group that controlled the partnership, not a person vulnerable to its control." Therefore, he was not an employee under the Code and could not contest the mandatory retirement. Abella J went on to state (at para. 46) an employee finding "would only be justified ... where the powers, rights and protections normally associated with a partnership were greatly diminished."

Topics and taglines
Tagline
equity partner not an employee under (human rights) control and dependency test
d7 import status
Drupal 7 entity type
Node
Drupal 7 entity ID
339699
Extra import data
{
"field_legacy_header": "<a id=\"McCormick\"></a><strong><em>McCormick v. Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP</em></strong>, 2014 SCC 39 <strong>[equity partner not an employee under (human rights) control and dependency test]</strong>",
"field_override_history": false,
"field_sid": "",
"field_topic_category": "seealso"
}