Master and Servant — Ontario Employment Law

9 casesDecisions from 1964–2015

About Master and Servant

If you are researching Ontario employment law or reading court documents, you might stumble across the phrase "master and servant." While it sounds incredibly archaic and out of place in a modern workplace, it is the foundational common law term for the employer-employee relationship. Before statutes like the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA) or the Ontario Human Rights Code were drafted, the rights and obligations of workers were governed entirely by the common law of master and servant.

Today, Ontario courts and lawyers still occasionally rely on master and servant case law, particularly when dealing with the implied duties built into every employment contract. Under these historical principles, a "servant" (employee) owes an inherent duty of loyalty, fidelity, and good faith to their "master" (employer). This means that even if you never signed a formal contract with a non-compete or confidentiality clause, the common law dictates that you cannot steal your employer's trade secrets, actively sabotage their business, or secretly compete with them while still on their payroll.

Conversely, the master and servant framework also established early rules outlining when an employer has the right to dismiss a worker for serious misconduct, such as dishonesty or theft, which breaches the core trust of the relationship. Modern courts still look back to these foundational cases when deciding whether an employee's actions justify termination for cause, or whether an injunction should be granted to stop a former worker from breaching a restrictive covenant or fiduciary duty.

While the terminology has largely evolved into "employer and employee," understanding your status under these common law rules is critical if you are accused of breaching a duty to your workplace. Because early English and Canadian common law established such deeply entrenched obligations, navigating allegations of disloyalty or contractual breaches can be legally hazardous. Your specific duties depend heavily on the unique facts of your role, making it essential to have a qualified Ontario legal professional review your situation rather than trying to interpret centuries-old legal principles on your own.

Frequently Asked Questions

What does a 'master and servant' relationship actually mean in modern Ontario?

It is simply the traditional legal term for an employer-employee relationship. While modern laws usually use 'employer' and 'employee', the common law principles established under 'master and servant' law still dictate the unwritten, fundamental duties of trust and loyalty between a worker and a company.

Does the master and servant law still apply if I am protected by the Employment Standards Act?

Yes, both apply simultaneously. The ESA provides statutory minimums like minimum wage, vacation pay, and basic notice of termination. The common law of master and servant governs the broader contractual relationship, including implied duties like fidelity and overarching rules for breach of contract.

Do I owe a 'duty of loyalty' to my employer under master and servant rules?

Yes. The common law dictates that all employees owe an implied duty of fidelity and good faith during their employment. This generally means you cannot compete against your employer, share their confidential information, or intentionally harm their business while you are employed there.

What happens if a court finds I breached my master and servant obligations?

If you breach foundational duties like loyalty or honesty, an employer may legally have grounds to terminate you for just cause. In severe cases involving stolen trade secrets or fiduciary breaches, an employer can also sue for damages or seek an injunction to stop your activities.

How do I know if I was a 'servant' or an independent contractor?

Courts use tests originally developed in early master and servant cases to figure this out, heavily focusing on 'control'. If the company dictated how, when, and where you worked, and owned the tools you used, a true employment (master/servant) relationship likely existed, regardless of what your contract called it.

When should I consult a lawyer regarding these types of contractual duties?

You should speak with an employment lawyer immediately if your employer accuses you of breaching confidentiality, violating a restrictive covenant, or failing in your duty of loyalty, as defending against these common law claims requires strict adherence to tight litigation timelines and complex precedents.

Common Scenarios

  • A senior manager resigns to start a competing firm, and their former employer files for a court injunction, citing historic master and servant case law to argue the manager breached their fiduciary duty and implied duty of fidelity.
  • A worker is fired without severance after the employer discovers they were secretly running a side hustle that directly stole clients from the company, a classic breach of the master and servant duty of loyalty.
  • A company attempts to sue a former worker for damages over a poorly drafted non-compete clause, forcing the court to examine foundational common law principles regarding restraint of trade and the fundamental balance of power in the employment relationship.

What You Should Know

  • Do not panic if you are reading a legal pleading or older court decision that refers to you as a 'servant'; it is not an insult, but rather historical legal terminology identifying your status as an employee.
  • Be aware that you owe a duty of good faith to your employer while employed; you cannot actively compete with them or use their confidential data for personal gain, even if you never signed a written employment contract.
  • Keep exceptional records of your actual day-to-day job duties, as common law courts will look closely at your level of authority to decide if you owed basic 'servant' duties or higher-level 'fiduciary' duties.
  • If your former employer threatens a lawsuit over a breach of restrictive covenants or common law duties, promptly get advice from an Ontario employment lawyer, as the intersection of archaic common law and modern employment statutes is highly complex.

Featured Cases

Naylor Group Inc. v. Cece

1994 CanLII 7425 (ON SC) · 1994-07-21

Restrictive Covenants and Fiduciary Relationship in Employment

A case involving restrictive covenants and the fiduciary relationship between an employer and employee. The court considered whether an injunction should be issued related to these terms.

fiduciary relationship injunction master and servant restrictive covenants

Tennant v. BP Oil Ltd.

1979 CanLII 1976 (ON SC) · 1979-12-07

Breach of Employment Contract: Damages Claim by Employee

A case involving a breach of contract claim by an employee (master and servant relationship) against their employer, BP Oil Ltd.

action for damages breach of contract damages employment contract master and servant

Reilly v. Steelcase Canada Ltd.

1979 CanLII 1751 (ON SC) · 1979-07-30

Wrongful Dismissal: Employee Terminated for Dishonesty

A wrongful dismissal case involving an employee who was terminated for dishonesty. The legal issue centers on whether the dismissal was justified under the master and servant relationship.

dishonesty employment law master and servant termination wrongful dismissal

Magee v. Channel Seventynine Ltd.

1976 CanLII 798 (ON SC) · 1976-11-30

Dismissal Case Involving Lord's Day Act

A dismissal case involving a master and servant relationship, with legal issues centered on the illegality of employment practices under the Lord's Day Act.

contract law dismissal illegality lord's day act master and servant

Dominion Al-Chrome Corp. Ltd. v. Stoll et al.

1974 CanLII 2833 (ON SC) · 1974-05-12

Employment Contract: Breach of Duty of Good Faith and Duty to Compete

A case involving a breach of duty of good faith and the employee's duty to compete in the context of a master and servant relationship.

breach of duty of good faith duty to compete employment contract injunction master and servant

Winkler v. High-Test Electrical Manufacturing Ltd.

1964 CanLII 300 (ON SC) · 1964-11-05

Master and Servant Act Case: Employment Contract Interpretation

A case involving the interpretation or application of the Master and Servant Act, section 4(1), likely concerning the legal obligations or rights of an employee under an employment contract.

employment contract master and servant master and servant act statutory obligations