In a decision that highlights the complexities of modern employment relationships and the implications of global corporate structures, the court found that Expro North Sea Ltd., despite being a U.K.-based entity with no physical presence in Nova Scotia, could be considered a common employer alongside Expro Group Canada Inc.
The ruling came after the worker who is suing for wrongful dismissal argued that the two companies had such intertwined operations that they should be treated as one and the same for the purposes of his employment.
Background
A.M. was hired as a Product Line Director for Expro Canada in November 2019 after initially applying for a position with Expro North Sea while working in Houston, Texas. The job offer from Expro North Sea was contingent upon his ability to work in the U.K..
However, due to visa issues, A.M. was offered a temporary position with Expro Canada, which eventually turned into indefinite employment. His employment journey included working from his home in Nova Scotia while reporting to various supervisors based in the U.K. and the U.S.
A.M.’s employment was terminated in October 2022, leading him to file a claim against the Respondents for wrongful dismissal and negligent misrepresentation. The core of his argument was that Expro North Sea and Expro Canada functioned as a single employer under common control, making both companies liable for the claims he brought forward.
The jurisdictional challenge
Expro North Sea challenged the jurisdiction of the Nova Scotia court, arguing that there was no real and substantial connection between its operations and the province. They maintained that the employment relationship, relevant contracts, and alleged torts had little to do with Nova Scotia.
The company cited that A.M.’s initial employment offer was with Expro North Sea in the U.K., and that any subsequent arrangements were managed by Expro Canada.
However, A.M. contended that the two entities operated so closely together that they should be regarded as common employers. He provided evidence showing that his duties, initially tied to Expro North Sea, were seamlessly transitioned to Expro Canada without any significant change in his role, compensation, or reporting structure.
His argument was bolstered by his continued interactions with Expro North Sea executives and the fact that his employment-related expenses and tax deductions were handled in Nova Scotia.
The court’s analysis
The court closely examined the principles of the common employer doctrine, which allows for the possibility that an employee may have more than one employer if those employers are closely related and exhibit a common intention to employ. The judge referenced the Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act (CJPTA) and existing case law to determine whether there was a real and substantial connection between the facts of the case and Nova Scotia.
“The evidence establishes that the Applicant was hired by Expro North, that his salary was paid by Expro Canada, and that he was dismissed from his employment by a supervisor working for Expro North,” the ruling stated. “The way that these companies share the essential elements of an employer/employee relationship indicates that they are common employers.”
The court also considered whether Expro North Sea carried on business in Nova Scotia by virtue of A.M.’s employment there. It found that Expro North Sea’s involvement in A.M.’s day-to-day work, including providing tools for his remote work and reimbursing his home office expenses, was sufficient to establish that they were carrying on business in the province.
Forum non conveniens
Expro North Sea argued that even if the court found jurisdiction, it should decline to exercise it on the basis of forum non conveniens, suggesting that the U.K. or Newfoundland and Labrador would be more appropriate forums. The company cited the inconvenience and expense of bringing witnesses to Nova Scotia.
However, the court rejected this argument, noting that Expro Group Holdings, the parent company, operates globally and that the challenges of global operations include the reality of litigation in different jurisdictions.
“This Court has demonstrated that it is open to virtual testimony should the Respondents make a motion and show good reason for why it is necessary,” the judge noted.
The court concluded that Nova Scotia was the most appropriate forum for the case, emphasizing that the Respondents failed to establish that another jurisdiction would be clearly more convenient.
Conversion to action
While A.M. initiated his claim as an application, the Respondents successfully argued for its conversion to an action. The court agreed that the complexity of the case, the number of witnesses, and the international scope of the evidence warranted a full trial rather than a streamlined application process.
“The Respondents have demonstrated that this application should be converted into an action based on the length of time it will take to prepare for trial,” the ruling concluded.
Next steps
With jurisdiction established and the case converted to an action, A.M.’s claim against Expro Canada and Expro North Sea will proceed in Nova Scotia.
For more information, see Mian v. Expro Group Canada Inc., 2024 NSSC 218 (CanLII).
