Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 05 JUNE 2014

There Are Times When You Don’t Want To Make Partner…

McCarthy Tétrault
McCarthy Tétrault
Contributor
McCarthy Tétrault

McCarthy Tétrault

Built on a unique model of collaboration, innovation and efficiency, McCarthy Tétrault delivers...

View firm profile
Explore more from McCarthy Tétrault

The Supreme Court of Canada nd the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom both had cause to consider the nature of partnership.

CanadaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

Overview

Recently, the Supreme Court of Canada ("SCC") and the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom ("UKSC") both had cause to consider the nature of partnership, and when certain protections due to employees or workers are extended to partners. While the two cases presented very different scenarios – the Canadian case concerning human rights, and the UK decision concerning employment rights – both decisions suggested that partners may indeed be employees in certain situations.

Background & Decision

McCormick v Fasken Martineau

John Michael McCormick had brought a complaint to the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal ("BCHRT") alleging that a provision of the Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP ("Fasken") Partnership Agreement  placing a time limit on the ownership interests of equity partners constituted age discrimination contrary to BC's Human Rights Code (the "Code").   At issue before the BCHRT was whether or not there was an employment

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from