He Chose to Be a Contractor. The Court of Appeal Said That Doesn't Decide It.

A worker in Ottawa was offered a role by a company headquartered in England. He was given a choice: employee or independent contractor. He picked contractor — for tax reasons. His agreement said disputes went to the courts of England. He was terminated, and he sued in Ontario anyway, arguing he was an employee at law and that Ontario's employment standards legislation made the forum clause unenforceable.

He lost that argument on the motion. He won it on appeal.

In Pringle v. Zenova Group PLC, 2026 ONCA 549, the Court of Appeal for Ontario set aside the stay, held that Ontario had jurisdiction and was a proper forum, and found the motion judge had erred in the way he applied the test for who counts as an employee. HR Law Canada reported the decision on August 4, 2026.

If your company engages Canadian workers on contractor paper — or you're a foreign parent running an Ontario team out of a head office somewhere else — this is the file to pull.

What happened

The founders incorporated the business in England and Wales in 2020. The appellant and one co-founder were based in Canada; the third was in England, where the business was headquartered. In spring 2021 the appellant accepted a position as Director of Product Development. He was offered the choice between employee and independent contractor status, and chose independent contractor for tax reasons. The written agreement identified him as a contractor and provided that all disputes were subject to the law and courts of England.

After his engagement ended, he sued in Ontario. The company moved to stay the action on the strength of the forum selection clause. The motion judge granted the stay, reasoning that the appellant was an independent contractor — and therefore not an employee within the meaning of the Employment Standards Act, 2000 — so the statutory protections that might have overridden the forum clause were not engaged.

The Court of Appeal disagreed with how that conclusion was reached. In its view, the motion judge erred in applying the Sagaz test and the Belton factors — the framework Canadian courts use to sort employees from contractors. The order was set aside. Ontario has jurisdiction. Ontario is a proper forum.

The part executives keep getting wrong

Here is the uncomfortable sentence, and it isn't new law — it's just law that a lot of companies have been quietly betting against:

The worker choosing contractor status does not make them a contractor.

Ontario's government says this in plain language in its own guidance on employee status under the ESA: an individual may be considered an employee even if the individual and the business agree, orally or in writing, that the individual is an independent contractor. It is the relationship that matters, not the label. The same guide to the ESA confirms that employers are prohibited from misclassifying employees as independent contractors.

So the "he asked for it" defence — the one that feels so obviously fair in the boardroom — is not a defence. It's a fact in the mix. Courts weigh control, ownership of tools, chance of profit, risk of loss, and how integrated the person is into the business. A signature at the bottom of a contractor agreement doesn't outrank any of that.

And notice the sequencing in Pringle. Classification wasn't the end of the case. It was the gate. Get classification wrong and you don't just lose an ESA argument — you lose control of where the fight happens. A carefully negotiated forum clause routing everything to London evaporated because the threshold question underneath it was answered incorrectly.

What it means for Ontario employers

1. Your contractor roster is a jurisdictional risk, not just a payroll risk. Most companies think about misclassification as an exposure to unpaid vacation pay, termination pay, and CPP/EI reassessment. Pringle adds a dimension: classification can determine whether your dispute-resolution architecture holds at all.

2. Foreign parents don't get to export Ontario employment law. If you have people working in Ontario, assume Ontario employment standards attach to them — regardless of where the entity sits, what law the contract picks, or which courts it names. This is the single most common miss we see in Canadian market entry work: the commercial contracts are localized carefully and the people arrangements are copied over from the home jurisdiction untouched.

3. "Director of Product Development" is a tell. A titled leadership role, integrated into the business, doing core work, is a hard fit for contractor status no matter what the paper says. When the role sits inside your org chart, you should expect a court to treat the person as inside your organization.

4. Tax convenience creates employment liability. Workers ask for contractor treatment because it's better for them at filing time. That request is completely rational and completely irrelevant to your obligations. Accommodating it without a real substantive analysis is where the exposure is created.

5. Termination is when the bill arrives. Nobody litigates classification while the relationship is good. It surfaces at the exit — which means every contractor you have today is a contingent liability that crystallizes on the day you end the engagement.

What to do now

Run a classification audit on every contractor you engage in Ontario. Not a review of the contracts — a review of the facts. Who controls the work? Who supplies the tools? Can the person profit or lose? Do they work for anyone else? Are they in your org chart, your systems, your all-hands? Score each engagement against the Sagaz and Belton factors and rank the exposure. This is exactly the kind of gap an outsourced HR function is built to close before it becomes a claim.

Reclassify the obvious ones before someone else does it for you. If a person has been doing an employee's job for three years on contractor paper, the question isn't whether that's a problem. It's whether you fix it on your timeline or on a plaintiff's.

Stop offering the choice. The "employee or contractor — your call" conversation should not happen. Determine the correct classification from the nature of the role, then offer that. If the person wants contractor treatment and the role genuinely supports it, restructure the role. Don't relabel it.

Localize your Ontario people documents — properly. Governing law and forum clauses inherited from a UK, US, or EU template are not a plan. Ontario employment standards will govern Ontario workers. Build the paperwork around that fact rather than against it. Major Canadian firms track these developments closely — the Osler employment and labour blog and Hicks Morley both publish running commentary worth having on your reading list — and your counsel should be reviewing your templates against them.

Get legal advice before you act on any of this. We are not lawyers, and Pringle is a jurisdictional ruling — the underlying merits are still live. What we do is find the gap between what your documents say and what your organization actually does, and close it before it turns into a claim, a complaint, or an investigation.

The takeaway

Ontario has now told employers twice in the same breath: the label doesn't govern, and getting the label wrong can cost you the venue as well as the case. A worker's own preference for contractor status is not a shield. Neither is a forum clause sitting on top of a classification that doesn't hold.

If you have contractors in Ontario and you have never stress-tested how they'd be classified by a court, you don't have a contractor program. You have unpriced risk.

---

Not sure where your exposure sits? 1205 Consulting works with Canadian and foreign-parent companies to audit workforce classification, localize people documents, and build the HR infrastructure that keeps employment risk out of the courts. If you'd rather find the gaps now than at a termination, book a 30-minute call or get in touch.

Already dealing with a complaint or a dispute? Start with our investigation readiness assessment to see how your process would hold up.

---

1205 Consulting provides HR and workplace investigation services. We are not a law firm and this article is not legal advice. Court decisions are summarized from public sources and reporting; read the primary decision and consult employment counsel before acting on any specific situation.