Retired Engineers Fight a CRA Employee Reclassification

The situation

Thalia spent thirty years as a construction project manager before retiring. Retirement lasted about eight months. A mid-sized home builder she had worked with for years called and asked if she would come back on contract — no benefits, no fixed hours, paid by invoice against milestones on two active subdivisions. She agreed, registered as a sole proprietor, and billed the builder roughly $9,000 to $12,000 a month depending on the phase of construction. Her spouse, Mai, a professional engineer who had also stepped back from full-time work, took on a similar arrangement with the same builder shortly after, reviewing structural drawings and signing off on site inspections on a per-project basis.

For just over three years, both of them worked this way: invoicing through their own businesses, claiming home office space, a vehicle used for site visits, and professional association dues as business expenses, and paying tax as self-employed individuals rather than through payroll deductions. Neither had a written contract with the builder beyond email exchanges confirming rates and scope.

The arrangement suited everyone. The builder avoided the overhead of adding two senior people to payroll for what it expected to be a temporary need. Thalia and Mai got flexible, well-paid work that let them scale up or down around travel and grandchildren, and neither wanted the administrative weight of being reclassified as employees, which would have meant giving up the freedom to turn down a project or bill someone else. For three tax years, they filed as sole proprietors and thought little more of it — until a letter from the builder's own accountant, forwarded to both of them, mentioned that CRA had opened an audit of the builder's contractor payments going back several years.

What the CRA audit found

The builder was audited first, as part of a broader review of how it classified its site-level consultants. CRA's auditors concluded that a number of the builder's long-term contractors — Thalia and Mai among them — were, in substance, employees who had been paid without source deductions. CRA then opened parallel files against the individuals themselves, issuing rulings under the Canada Pension Plan and the Employment Insurance Act that both were engaged in insurable and pensionable employment, not self-employment.

The practical effect landed hardest on their personal tax returns. If they were employees rather than contractors, the business expenses they had claimed over three years were not deductible in the way they had assumed, and both were reassessed for additional income tax on that basis, plus retroactive Canada Pension Plan contributions the auditors said should have been withheld and remitted. Between them, CRA's reassessment came to roughly $310,000 — about $190,000 in additional income tax from disallowed expenses and adjusted income treatment, and about $120,000 in retroactive CPP contributions, arrears interest and penalties.

Worker status determinations turn on a well-established set of factors CRA and the courts apply together: the degree of control the payer has over how and when the work is done, who supplies the tools and equipment, whether the worker carries any real chance of profit or risk of loss, and how integrated the worker's activity is into the payer's business. No single factor decides the case. CRA's auditors had leaned heavily on the fact that Thalia and Mai worked exclusively for one builder, used the builder's project management software, and attended site meetings on a schedule the builder set — treating those as signs of control and integration outweighing everything else.

What we did

1. Requested a formal review before accepting the ruling as final. A CRA ruling on worker status can be challenged. Rather than simply paying the reassessment or waiting for collections activity, we filed for a review of the ruling itself, supported by a detailed submission addressing each of the four factors CRA relies on.
2. Rebuilt the risk and independence picture. Both Thalia and Mai had, in fact, carried real business risk that the audit had missed: they invoiced other clients during the same period, though at lower volumes; they used their own vehicles, laptops, professional software licenses and home offices at their own expense; they had no entitlement to overtime, vacation pay or benefits, and were not paid when a project paused; and Mai carried her own professional liability insurance as a requirement of practising as an engineer, which she paid for personally. We documented all of this with invoices, bank records, insurance certificates and a log of the other clients each had billed.
3. Addressed the 'one main client' problem directly rather than avoiding it. Working mostly for a single payer is common for semi-retired consultants easing back into part-time work, and it is not on its own decisive. Courts and CRA still ask whether the worker could, in principle, refuse a task or take on other clients — and both Thalia and Mai had done exactly that at points during the relevant years, which we were able to show through their invoicing history.
4. Reframed the control evidence. Attending scheduled site meetings and using the builder's software were framed by the audit as employee-like control. We argued, with supporting emails, that these were standard conditions any construction consultant would need to meet to do the job at all — not evidence that the builder controlled how Thalia managed a site or how Mai exercised her engineering judgment on an inspection. Nobody at the builder told either of them how to do the technical work; they were retained for that expertise precisely because the builder's own staff did not have it in-house.
5. Filed within the required timeline and kept the file moving. Ruling reviews and any subsequent appeal steps are subject to strict deadlines. We tracked every date against the file and made sure CRA had a complete submission the first time, to avoid the delay of a second round of document requests.

The outcome

CRA's review reversed the original rulings for both Thalia and Mai. The reviewing officer accepted that, on balance, the four factors pointed toward independent contractor status rather than employment: real financial risk, ownership of tools and equipment, freedom to take on other work, and control limited to project outcomes rather than day-to-day methods. With the rulings reversed, the connected income tax reassessments were cancelled — the disallowed business expenses were restored, the retroactive CPP contributions were withdrawn, and the roughly $310,000 combined balance CRA had been pursuing came down to nil.

The process took a little over a year from the original rulings to the reversal, most of it spent gathering and organizing three years of invoicing and client records that neither Thalia nor Mai had kept with an audit in mind. Along the way, both had to respond to follow-up questions from the reviewing officer about specific invoices and gaps in their client rosters, which added a few months to the timeline but ultimately strengthened the file — the more detail CRA asked for, the more clearly the pattern of genuine independent work came through.

Neither of them changed how they worked with the builder afterward — the underlying relationship was fine, only its tax treatment had been in dispute. But both now keep a running file of other clients billed, expenses paid personally, and correspondence showing they controlled how the work got done, in case the question is ever raised again. Mai in particular now renews her professional liability insurance a few months earlier than she used to, simply so the certificate date lines up cleanly with the start of each new engagement on paper.

What you can learn from this