The legislation, formally known as the Master and Servant Act, was repealed by the Ontario legislature on November 14, 2017. There are no comparable statutes in other jurisdictions. This is the statute referenced in the above review on a contract for life.

Its existence may still be relevant to contracts made prior to the date of repeal as there are no transitional provisions.

One of its terms states that the maximum term for an employment contract is 9 years. This provision cannot be contracted out, as with all the provisions of the Act, in the case of any person employed in manual labour. A manager, officer or superintendent may enter into an agreement which contracts out of the statute, which must be done specifically and not by inference.

The origins of the legislation were intended to prevent slavery.

It also contained odd provisions denying the employee the right to audit or seek an accounting of profit sharing or bonus sums, absent fraud.

Agreement for share in profits of business

3. (1)An agreement entered into by an employee and his or her employer under which a share of the profits of any trade, calling, business or employment is to be paid to the employee in lieu of or in addition to salary, wages or other remuneration, unless the agreement otherwise provides or a contrary intention may be reasonably inferred therefrom, does not,

(a) create any relation in the nature of a partnership or the rights or liabilities of partners; or

(b) give to the employee the right to examine into the accounts or interfere in the management or affairs of the trade, calling or business. R.S.O. 1990, c. E.12, s. 3 (1).

Employer’s statement of profits to be final

(2)  Any statement or return by the employer of the net profits of the trade, calling, business or employment on which the employer declares and appropriates the share of profits payable under such agreement is final and conclusive between the parties and all persons claiming under them, and is not impeachable upon any ground, except fraud. R.S.O. 1990, c. E.12, s. 3 (2).

It is bizarre to think that such legislation would exist even as recently as 2017.

Decided cases under the statute are few. Pelletier v Caisse Populaire Lasalle Sudbury, a 1984 decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal was one. The employment contract stated that its duration was until age 65 unless Mr. Pelletier was dismissed for just cause.

Steele, J. held that this was a fixed term contract which did not include a fair notice provision. The contract, however, was held not to binding after the 9^th anniversary, which was in 1986. As the dismissal was in September of 1983, the loss allowed was through to October 1, 1986, less severance received and other earnings and subject to a discount to represent the likely contingency of income through to the future date of October 1986.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on liability. The plaintiff had argued that there was an implicit waiver of the limiting 9 year period, unsuccessfully.

In Hine v Susan Shoe, the same case referenced above in a different context, the plaintiff had been dismissed 24 years after her initial hiring, which was subject to a 6 month severance clause. The plaintiff argued that the employment contract, which did not have a specific temporal term within it, should be denied due to the impact of the statute. The argument failed as the contract did not specify a fixed term but was of indefinite duration.