The appellant franchisor operated a network of cleaning franchises in the Quebec region through a tripartite business model: the franchisor negotiated master cleaning contracts with clients, assigned those contracts (imperfectly) to franchisees who performed the actual cleaning, while remaining directly liable to clients for non-performance.
A parity committee claimed unpaid wages on behalf of a franchisee under the Act respecting collective agreement decrees.
The majority held that the trial judge committed a palpable and overriding error by failing to consider the tripartite nature of the business model, and that the franchisee was an "employee" and the franchisor a "professional employer" within the meaning of the Act.
The dissent would have restored the trial judge's decision, finding no reviewable error and that the imperfect assignment did not materially affect the franchisee's assumption of business risk, and that the franchisor did not exercise sufficient control to qualify as a professional employer.
