![Global rules on foreign direct investment](https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/-/media/images/nrf/nrfweb/knowledge/publications/us_24355_legal-update--fdi-alert.jpeg?w=265&revision=a5124a65-abf9-40e4-8e96-9df39ffdb212&revision=5250068427347387904&hash=96B456347C3246E5649838DF281C5F5D)
Publication
Global rules on foreign direct investment (FDI)
Cross-border acquisitions and investments increasingly trigger foreign direct investment (FDI) screening requirements.
Canada | Publication | marzo 2022
The Supreme Court of Canada has dismissed an application for leave to appeal from the Ontario Court of Appeal’s 2021 judgment in O’Reilly v ClearMRI Solutions Ltd. (O’Reilly),1 a decision that clarified the common employer doctrine. O’Reilly was the Court of Appeal’s most in-depth analysis of the contentious employment law doctrine since its 1993 decision in Downtown Eatery.2 The Supreme Court’s decision to deny leave to appeal O’Reilly brings certainty to this area of the law for employers and employees.
In October 2014, William O’Reilly commenced a lawsuit for unpaid wages, vacation pay and other damages. In addition to claiming against his nominal employer, ClearMRI Solutions, Inc. (ClearMRI), O’Reilly also named a number of other defendants, including Tornado Medical Systems Inc. (Tornado), the parent of the parent company of ClearMRI. On a motion for summary judgment, O’Reilly was successful in obtaining judgment against Tornado. The motion judge held that Tornado was his “common employer” and therefore jointly and severally liable for the employment aspects of the judgment.
In June 2021, a unanimous panel of the Ontario Court of Appeal held that the motion judge had failed to apply the correct legal test for the common employer doctrine and overturn the lower court’s judgment against Tornado. The Court of Appeal clarified that the doctrine of common employer is only triggered if the purported common employer actually entered into an employment contract with the employee, a question that can be evidenced both by a written agreement or by other conduct, which, viewed objectively, demonstrates an intention to create an employment relationship.
However, consistent with the doctrine of corporate separateness, the Court of Appeal held that a corporation is not held to be a common employer simply because it is owned, controlled, or affiliated with a corporation that had a direct relationship with the employee.
O’Reilly sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, arguing that the Court of Appeal had departed from established caselaw by creating a new test for the common employer doctrine grounded in principles of contract law and corporate separateness. O’Reilly also argued the decision conflicted with other provinces’ laws. In March 2022, the Supreme Court dismissed O’Reilly’s application, implicitly affirming the Court of Appeal’s treatment of the doctrine.3
Tornado Medical Systems was represented in both the Ontario Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada by Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP. The litigation team included Ted Brook, Paul Macchione and Jean-Simon Schoenholz.
O'Reilly v. ClearMRI Solutions Ltd., 2021 ONCA 385.
Downtown Eatery (1993) Ltd. v. Ontario, 2001 CanLII 8538 (ON CA).
William O’Reilly v. Jeff Hassman, et al., 2022 CanLII 16717 (SCC).
Publication
Cross-border acquisitions and investments increasingly trigger foreign direct investment (FDI) screening requirements.
Publication
Artificial intelligence (AI) raises many intellectual property (IP) issues.
Publication
We are delighted to announce that Al Hounsell, Director of Strategic Innovation & Legal Design based in our Toronto office, has been named 'Innovative Leader of the Year' at the International Legal Technology Association (ILTA) Awards.
Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest legal news, information and events . . .
© Norton Rose Fulbright LLP 2023