A Saskatchewan court has dismissed an appeal by a minor sports organization that argued a worker who had been with the organization for 16.5 years was an independent contractor rather than an employee, thus solidifying her entitlement to 22 months’ notice of termination.
The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal unanimously upheld two lower court rulings in favor of R.M., who had worked for the Saskatoon Minor Basketball Association (SMBA) in various roles over the years, including as executive director when her position was terminated.
The court found that although R.M. worked from home, invoiced SMBA monthly for services, and filed taxes as an independent contractor, the overall nature of the relationship clearly pointed to an employment relationship rather than that of an independent contractor.
From administrative assistant to executive director
R.M. began her career with SMBA as a part-time administrative assistant making $10.50 per hour. Over the years, she progressed to executive assistant, programs and communications coordinator, and finally executive director—the position she held when terminated.
During her entire 16.5-year working relationship with SMBA, R.M. worked exclusively from home and exclusively for SMBA.
When the COVID-19 pandemic forced SMBA to reorganize in 2021, R.M. was notified that her position would end effective May 31, 2021. She was given three options: accept a short-term three-month position, apply for a restructured position with nearly double the responsibilities (including bookkeeping duties for which she had no experience), or accept six weeks’ severance.
R.M. accepted the three-month position without agreeing it constituted a settlement.
No signed contract
The court noted that no signed contract for R.M.’s most recent position was ever located, though both parties agreed a contract had been signed at some point. SMBA regularly sent R.M. contracts that were usually not signed and returned.
The most recent unsigned annual contract was titled “Independent Contract of Randi MacDonald” and provided “Salary and Benefits” of $48,480 per year. It specified termination provisions allowing SMBA to end the relationship with 1.5 months’ notice or equivalent pay.
Despite the contract’s title, the court observed that R.M. was not referred to as an “independent contractor” within the contract language itself.
Employee vs. independent contractor analysis
In its analysis, the court applied the established framework for determining whether an individual is an employee or independent contractor, considering both subjective intention and objective reality.
The court found that when examining the totality of the relationship, the evidence favoring an employment relationship was stronger than evidence pointing to independent contractor status. Key factors included:
- Level of remuneration
- Length of the relationship (16.5 years)
- Level of supervision
- Power imbalance between the parties
- Role being fulfilled
- Level of integration between R.M. and SMBA
“Fundamentally, throughout this relationship, [R.M.] was not in business for herself; she was working as an employee of SMBA,” the court stated.
Notice period determination
Having established R.M. was an employee, the court turned to what constituted reasonable notice in her case, considering the Bardal factors: nature of employment, length of service, age of the employee, and availability of similar employment.
After reviewing comparable cases from across Canada spanning two decades, the court observed “there has been a gradual increase in the amount of reasonable notice courts have been prepared to award.”
It determined that an appropriate range in R.M.’s case would be anywhere between 16 and 22 months. The 22 months awarded by the lower court (less three months’ working notice already provided) was “on the higher end of the range, but it is still within the appropriate range.”
Failed mitigation argument
SMBA had argued that R.M. failed to mitigate her damages by declining the organization’s offer of a nine-month contract extension.
The court rejected this argument, noting two “fundamental problems” with SMBA’s position:
- “The offer contemplates that [R.M.] accept a position for which she had no training or qualifications.”
- “The offer requires that [R.M.] release SMBA and accept nine-months’ working notice when she had been claiming to be owed in excess of this amount.”
“Given these two facts, it cannot be said that a reasonable person in [R.M.’s] shoes would have taken this offer of employment. To take this offer would be to give up a significant portion of her claim for reasonable notice,” the court concluded.
Costs award upheld
The lower court initially awarded R.M. $3,000 in costs, but after learning she had previously offered to settle for $65,000 (less than what she ultimately received), increased the costs award to $11,000.
SMBA challenged this decision, but the appeals court found the costs award reasonable, noting the judge had balanced “the fact that [R.M.] was successful on the summary judgment application, that the position of SMBA, while ultimately incorrect in law, was not motivated by malice or bad faith, and that [R.M.] had clearly surpassed the offer she had made.”
In dismissing both appeals by SMBA, the court ordered costs for R.M. in the appeal as well.
For more information, see Saskatoon Minor Basketball Association v MacDonald, 2025 SKCA 42 (CanLII).
