In Sproule v Tony Graham Lexus Toyota et al ( 2016 ONSC 2220) the Court held that operating companies can be common employers but that is not the case for pure holding companies .
The Court said as follows:
20. The defendants have conceded that there is a potential for a finding at the conclusion of the trial that the operating companies were one “common employer”. The evidence may potentially lead to the conclusion that they all had “effective control over the employee”. However, the defendants’ position with respect to the holding companies is that there is no genuine issue for trial, in that there is no evidence that could possibly give rise to a finding that the holding companies are common employers.
21. I agree with the position advocated by the defendants. The fact that these companies are intermingled financially, even to a great extent, will not result in a finding that they had effective control over the employee. They are holding companies — nothing more, nothing less. They do not exercise directly or indirectly any control over the employees. The doctrine of common employer has no application to them on any analysis of the evidence. As such there is no genuine issue for trial.
Furthermore there is no claim against the individual owners of the companies, even when they are the controlling minds of the employer companies unless there is an allegation of fraud, deceit, dishonesty or want of authority against the individuals.
1,501 thoughts on “Holding Companies of Operating Companies not Common Employers”