On December 13, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) will hear the appeal of Michael McCormick, equity partner at the respondent law firm, Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP. McCormick has appealed the decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal (BCCA)1 to Canada’s highest court, which held that the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear his age discrimination complaint. The BCCA found that since there was no relationship of “employment” between McCormick, an equity partner, and his law firm, his discrimination complaint could not be heard. For McCormick and other complainants like him, unless the alleged discrimination occurred in the area of “employment” (or another applicable area under the Act), a remedy cannot be obtained under the human rights legislation.
McCormick turned 65 years old in 2010 and pursuant to the partnership agreement at Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP, he was required to retire at the end of the financial year. McCormick filed a complaint with the BC Human Rights Tribunal on the basis that the firm, where he was an equity partner since about 1979, discriminated against him on the prohibited ground of age. At issue was whether the partnership relationship was one of “employment,” contemplated by the Act. The BC Human Rights Tribunal, and subsequently, the British Columbia Supreme Court (BCSC), found in favour of McCormick, holding that for the purpose of the human rights legislation, a partnership may be treated as a separate legal entity from its partners. McCormick’s relationship with the firm would therefore be one of “employment” giving the tribunal jurisdiction to hear his age discrimination complaint.
On appeal, the BCCA reversed the decision of the BCSC, holding that the BC Human Rights Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear the discrimination complaint. Writing for a unanimous BCCA, Madam Justice Levine’s analysis recognized that human rights legislation, given its quasi-constitutional status attracted a broad, liberal and purposive interpretation, but she refused to uphold the earlier decisions that the relationship between the law firm partnership and equity partner was one of “employment.” Her analysis focused on the irrefutable legal principle that a partnership is not a separate legal entity at law from its partners and therefore, the decision of the BCSC could not be supported.
The SCC is now tasked with deciding whether the relationship between a partner and the partnership is one of “employment” within the meaning of human rights legislation. More broadly speaking, it has the opportunity to clarify if individuals who are not, strictly speaking, “employees,” can claim protection from discrimination and seek a remedy under human rights legislation.
In June 2025, a U.S. federal court released a major decision involving Anthropic PBC, a leading developer of generative artificial intelligence (AI) systems. The case examined whether training AI models using copyrighted materials without permission can qualify as “fair use” under U.S. law. Although the ruling applies to American copyright law, it raises important questions […]
read moreWritten by Monika M.L. Zauhar, Partner and Stephanie Charlton, Associate, in Fredericton. It is well established that the owner of an automobile is vicariously liable for the negligence of those who drive the vehicle with the owner’s consent. Further, insurance legislation across Canada recognizes that more than one insurance policy may cover a particular loss. […]
read moreWritten by Jenna B. Smith, Associate in Fredericton As explained recently by the Ontario Court of Appeal decision Titus Steel Company Limited v. Hack, 2025 ONCA 693 (CanLII), even when a former employee breaches their post-employment obligations, the breach may not give rise to damages. Even worse, the Employer can be ordered to pay costs […]
read more
