Modern Cleaning Concept Inc. v. Comité paritaire Flashcards
What was the central legal issue in this case?
Whether Mr. Bourque was truly an independent contractor under his franchise agreement with Modern, or if he should be considered an employee.
What did the written agreement between Modern and Mr. Bourque state?
That Mr. Bourque was an independent contractor.
Who negotiated cleaning contracts with clients?
Modern negotiated all contracts — Mr. Bourque had no authority to do so.
Who billed the clients and received payments?
Modern billed clients directly and received all payments.
Could Mr. Bourque solicit his own cleaning contracts?
No – he had to refer all potential opportunities to Modern.
Who assumed liability for cleaning service performance?
Modern remained directly liable to clients for all services.
What principle did the court use to determine the true nature of the relationship?
The court assessed substance over form, focusing on economic control and dependence, not just the contract wording.
What key legal test did the court apply?
The risk and profit test – asking who bore the economic risk and retained the profit.
What was the final ruling?
The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Mr. Bourque was an employee, not an independent contractor.
What did the ruling mean for Mr. Bourque’s rights?
He became subject to the collective agreement for cleaning workers and gained access to employment benefits and salary protections.
Why was this case important for franchise-style work relationships?
It reinforced that courts will look beyond contract labels and focus on the actual working relationship to protect worker rights.
What CCQ articles are relevant to defining independent contractors?
CCQ 2098–2100, which outline the characteristics of an independent service contract.
What is a defining characteristic of an independent contractor?
They must maintain control over how the work is done, assume financial risk, and negotiate their own contracts — none of which applied to Mr. Bourque.
