Tina K. Lee

A sole practitioner lawyer provided legal services to the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) pursuant to a series of retainer agreements over 13 years.

When the OCL did not renew her retainer, the lawyer claimed she was a dependent contractor entitled to notice of termination.

The motion judge found her to be a dependent contractor, but the Court of Appeal reversed, holding that she was an independent contractor.

The court found that while the OCL work represented an average of 39.9% of her billings, this did not constitute the "near-complete exclusivity" required to establish dependent contractor status.

The court emphasized that exclusivity is the hallmark of dependent contractor relationships and that 39.9% of income cannot reasonably be characterized as near-exclusive.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for default judgment against the defendants, who own an adjoining townhouse.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants' unauthorized demolition and construction work caused significant structural and water damage to the plaintiffs' property.

The court found the defendants liable in both negligence and private nuisance, as they breached their duty of care and substantially interfered with the plaintiffs' use of their property.

The court awarded the plaintiffs $25,435 in property damages, $5,000 in punitive damages for the defendants' high-handed conduct, and $10,000 in costs.

The defendant, the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (OCL), brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for notice or payment in lieu of notice upon the expiry of her contract.

The central issues were whether the plaintiff was a dependent or independent contractor and, if dependent, whether she was entitled to notice despite a fixed-term contract.

The court found the plaintiff to be a dependent contractor, considering the 13-year continuous relationship, the integral nature of her work for the OCL, public perception, and the OCL's control, despite her OCL income averaging less than 50% of her total billings.

The court also rejected the argument that fixed-term contracts preclude notice in this context due to the repeated renewals.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed.