Bill 47, also known as Making Ontario Open for Business Act, affects worker classification by removing what?

Bill 47, also known as Making Ontario Open for Business Act, affects worker classification by removing what?

• A. The reverse onus on employees
• B. The requirement to file taxes
• C. The reverse onus on employers
• D. The right to unionize

Answer: (C)

The key idea here is how the burden of proof works in worker classification disputes. A “reverse onus” means one party must prove something that normally the other party would bear the burden for. In the context of worker classification, an employer with a reverse onus would have to prove that a worker is not an employee (often to avoid obligations like payroll taxes, benefits, and protections). Bill 47 changed this by removing that reverse onus on employers. So, after this change, the special burden on employers to prove non-employee status is gone. The practical effect is that the classification framework becomes more favorable to quick contractor labeling, since the employer no longer carries that extra proof duty. This aligns with the act’s aim to reduce regulatory burden on businesses. The other options aren’t tied to this specific policy change: taxing or tax-filing requirements aren’t what Bill 47 targeted in terms of worker classification; the right to unionize is a broader labour-relations issue and not the classification burden addressed by the bill.

The key idea here is how the burden of proof works in worker classification disputes. A “reverse onus” means one party must prove something that normally the other party would bear the burden for. In the context of worker classification, an employer with a reverse onus would have to prove that a worker is not an employee (often to avoid obligations like payroll taxes, benefits, and protections). Bill 47 changed this by removing that reverse onus on employers.

So, after this change, the special burden on employers to prove non-employee status is gone. The practical effect is that the classification framework becomes more favorable to quick contractor labeling, since the employer no longer carries that extra proof duty. This aligns with the act’s aim to reduce regulatory burden on businesses.

The other options aren’t tied to this specific policy change: taxing or tax-filing requirements aren’t what Bill 47 targeted in terms of worker classification; the right to unionize is a broader labour-relations issue and not the classification burden addressed by the bill.