A recent decision from the Ontario Court of Appeal in D. v. Amazon Canada Fulfillment Services, 2025 ONCA, provides guidance on “common employer” claims in the context of gig worker misclassification.
Importantly, this ruling does not mean gig workers cannot bring misclassification claims. Instead, the Court focused on whether a large group of drivers could pursue their claims together as a single class action under a specific legal theory — the “common employer” doctrine.
The outcome turned on the structure of the working relationships and the evidence available in this particular case.
The Facts: Two Groups of Drivers
The proposed class action involved approximately 73,000 drivers who alleged they had been misclassified as independent contractors.
The drivers fell into two groups:
- Delivery Providers (DPs): Drivers who contracted directly with the defendant corporation.
- Delivery Associates (DAs): Drivers who were formally employed by one of 126 different third-party logistics companies that had contracts with the defendant.
The legal strategy for the DA group relied on the “common employer” doctrine, arguing that the corporation exercised enough control over the logistics companies and their drivers that it should be treated as the true employer.
Why the Number of Employers Mattered
Although tens of thousands of drivers were involved, the Court focused on one key fact: the Delivery Associates worked for 126 separate employers.
Each logistics company had its own contracts, management practices, and working arrangements. Because of this, there was no single employment relationship to assess across the group.
The Court found that determining whether a “common employer” relationship existed would require 126 separate legal analyses. As a result, the Court concluded that the claim could not proceed as a class action for this group, describing it as “126 discrete proposed class actions joined together.”
What the Court Considered
In a “common employer” claim, the issue is whether more than one defendant can be treated as the worker’s employer based on how the working relationship operates in practice.
The Court examined factors such as:
- how the worker was recruited and managed
- who directed the work and set expectations
- which entity controlled scheduling, policies, or performance standards
- how payment and contracts were structured
- whether the businesses actually operated as one integrated employer in relation to the worker
While all drivers used the same delivery app, the Court found that a shared tool alone was not enough to establish a common employment relationship across 126 different companies.
What the Limit Was
The key takeaway is that a “common employer” finding is not automatic just because companies are related, share branding, or work closely together.
The worker must show clear evidence that the defendants functioned as a single employer in how they controlled and directed the work. Where that evidence varies significantly from one company to another, a class action may not be the appropriate way to resolve the claims.
What This Means for Gig Workers
This decision is best understood as a reminder about proof and procedure — not a rejection of gig worker rights.
Gig workers may still have viable claims depending on their individual circumstances, including claims based on:
- whether they were misclassified as independent contractors
- whether the relationship was, in substance, an employment relationship
- whether they are owed termination pay, severance, or other entitlements
Each case depends on the full working relationship, including control, dependence, and how the work is actually performed day-to-day.
Key Takeaways for Employees
- This decision does not eliminate misclassification claims for gig workers.
- The proposed class action failed largely because drivers were employed by 126 different companies.
- “Common employer” findings require specific evidence of unified control.
- Related companies are not automatically treated as one employer.
- Legal outcomes depend heavily on the details of the working relationship.
If you are a gig worker or independent contractor and are unsure whether you have been properly classified, speaking with an employment lawyer can help clarify your rights and options. Monkhouse Law Employment Lawyers offers a complimentary 30-minute phone consultation for non-union employees.