Employee or Independent Contractor? Charting the Legal Significance of the Distinction in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The distinction between employees and independent contractors is crucial in determining the scope of application of labour and employment legislation in Canada, since the self-employed are, for the most part, treated as entrepreneurs who do not require the statutory protections accorded to employees. Yet statistics indicate that most self-employed people resemble employees more than entrepreneurs, in the sense that they are economically dependent on the sale of their labor and are often subject to inferior terms and conditions of work. Using four Canadian jurisdictions as a basis for this comparison, the authors demonstrate that there are wide variations in the personal scope of converge of the common and civil law of employment, collective bargaining, employment standards, human rights and workers’ compensation legislation, as well as social wage and income tax legislation. These variations, it is argued, reflect an ad hoc political process of extending or denying coverage to certain groups of employees while attempt to maintain the formal distinction between employees and independent contractors. Furthermore, the development of increasingly elaborate legal tests has not succeeded in eliminating the uncertainty which often attends the determination of a worker’s status. In the authors’ view, the time has come to consider dissolving the employee-independent contractor distinction, and extending coverage to all workers dependent on the sale of their capacity to work, unless compelling policy reasons exist for a more restrictive approach.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".