Alberta tribunal rejects contractor label, still denies overtime claim

An Alberta employer tried three different defences to avoid paying an RV park manager thousands in overtime. An appeal tribunal rejected the contractor argument outright, then sided with the employer anyway after the worker's own testimony unraveled her claim of 12-hour days, seven days a week.

In a decision released Aug. 26, 2026, Chair Nancy Schlesinger of the Alberta Employment Standards Appeals Board found that the worker, who managed a small Edson RV park from August 2024 until she resigned in May 2025, was an employee rather than an independent contractor. The employer had appealed an officer's order to pay $3,785.06 in wages, $19,926.84 in overtime, $639.67 in vacation pay and $1,947.14 in general holiday pay. Schlesinger ultimately allowed the appeal on overtime and wages, though vacation pay and general holiday pay remain owing subject to recalculation.

Tribunal finds worker was employee, not contractor

The worker and the park's owner met at a coffee shop in mid-August 2024 to discuss her taking on the manager role. Days later, they signed a handwritten document titled "Terms of Employment" that described her as a "contractor" paid a $3,000 monthly management fee, minus $800 deducted for renting a trailer on site. The owner drafted the document alone, and the worker had no input into its terms.

Schlesinger weighed the relationship against the factors set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in 671122 Ontario Ltd. v Sagaz Industries Canada Inc., including control over the work, ownership of equipment and financial risk. The tribunal found the owner supplied nearly all the tools used at the park, provided direction whenever difficulties arose, and controlled the pay and contract terms, while the worker bore little financial risk and had no business of her own.

The tribunal rejected the employer's argument that a separate federal ruling classifying the worker as self-employed should be treated as decisive, noting the ruling contained no findings of fact or reasoning tied to the period in question. Weighing the evidence heard at the hearing itself, Schlesinger found "the Appellant's argument that the Respondent was an independent contractor is rejected."

Cross-examination challenges worker's claimed hours

The worker sought overtime pay based on a claimed schedule of 12-hour days, seven days a week, pointing to signage at the park advertising hours of 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. Her son, who often helped with tasks at the park, testified in support of her position.

Under cross-examination, the worker acknowledged she had not actually worked those hours, describing instead an expectation that she be available to guests during the park's posted hours. Her son testified the owner never required either of them to stay on site during that window, and that they ran personal errands and spent time in the trailer during the day.

Schlesinger noted that when the owner changed the worker's schedule in February 2025 to four hours a day, six days a week, she had no trouble completing her regular duties. The tribunal found it hard to reconcile that later reality with a claim of far longer hours during the assessment period, particularly given the park's slow winter season.

Missing employment records factored into the ruling

The employer kept no timesheets or pay records for the worker during the period in dispute. Under Alberta's Employment Standards Code, employers who fail to keep accurate hours records bear the consequences when a dispute over pay arises, a principle Schlesinger cited in her reasons.

In this case, however, the missing records did not settle the overtime claim in the worker's favour. Her own testimony and her son's account of the actual duties performed, combined with uncontested evidence that the park sat largely empty through the winter, left the tribunal unable to accept that she had worked anywhere near the hours claimed.

The appeal on overtime and wage deductions was allowed, with Schlesinger concluding the worker's account of her hours was "not in harmony with what is reasonably likely to have taken place." Vacation pay and general holiday pay from the original order remain in place pending recalculation, and the tribunal declined the employer's request for costs.

See 1701104 ALBERTA LTD. v Tucker, 2026 ABESAB 17