Decision Search Results
Searching, please wait...
| Decision No. 2018 09 | 09-Dec-2009 | J. Josefo |
| The plaintiff in a civil action was a 12-year-old boy who was injured in a motor vehicle accident while driving an all terrain vehicle across a road as he was travelling back from a remote farm field to the farm house. The plaintiff’s grandfather was the boss of the farm. The plaintiff brought the action against the driver of the other vehicle and against his grandfather. The insurer of the grandfather applied for a determination of whether the plaintiff’s right of action was taken away. The issue was whether the plaintiff was a worker of the grandfather. Evidence indicated that the plaintiff had displayed in interest and aptitude for farm work from an early age. The grandfather tried to encourage this and to instil values in his grandson. The plaintiff was performing work when he was out in the field. He was scuffling beans, a delicate operation which, if not performed correctly, could destroy part or even all of the crop in that field. The plaintiff was performing this work alone on the day in question, during summer vacation. The plaintiff was paid some monies while performing work on the farm. However, there was no intent to create an employment relationship. The grandfather wanted to teach the plaintiff about the business of farming, including the need to finish tasks in a timely fashion and the value of money. These are life lessons that parents and grandparents often teach their children and grandchildren. However, doing so does not convert a familial relationship into an employment relationship. The plaintiff was not a worker of the grandfather. His right of action was not taken away. |
| View Full Decision Text 12 Page(s) |
| References: | Act Citation Other Case Reference |
| Style of Cause: | Murray v. Bes |
| Neutral Citation: | 2009 ONWSIAT 2851 |
