Background:
Gisela Courchene, the respondent, sued her former employer, Dr. Paul Lee Inc., for wrongful dismissal and named James McCallum & Associates Ltd. (JMA), an accounting firm, as a co-defendant. Courchene alleged JMA was a “common employer” with Dr. Paul Lee Inc. JMA applied to strike the claim, arguing there were no material facts supporting the allegation.

Legal Issues:

• Whether JMA could be considered a common employer alongside Dr. Paul Lee Inc.
• Whether Courchene’s pleadings contained sufficient material facts to support the claim.
• Whether the Supreme Court Civil Rules, Rule 9-5(1)(a) justified striking the claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

Court’s Analysis^:

• The common employer doctrine requires a clear, objective intention to create an employment relationship.
• Courchene failed to plead facts showing JMA had employer-like attributes (e.g., issuing paychecks, terminating employment, or benefiting from her work).
• Courts recognize common employers when entities are related corporations, which was not the case here.
• Mere direction and control by JMA in payroll and administrative functions did not establish an employment relationship.

Outcome:
The British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed JMA’s appeal, ruling that Courchene’s claim lacked sufficient material facts and struck the claim against JMA. The decision did not specify an award of costs.