Boylu – Tax Court of Canada finds that an Uber driver was self-employed

Friedlander J. found that although the Uber app governed many crucial aspects of the taxpayer’s activities as an Uber driver, including access to the market, the pricing of rides, and payment, the taxpayer nonetheless (on the basis of the “very limited” evidence) should be treated as an independent contractor rather than an Uber employee given his complete control over his car and its hours of driving, and as to whether or not to use another ride sharing service. This meant that his fares for the assessed years (2015 and 2016) were subject to HST subject to the small supplier exclusion.

The Justice pleadings had implicitly misinterpreted the exclusion (by treating the taxpayer as having ceased to be a small supplier at the particular point in 2015 at which the $30,000 threshold was exceeded for that year), so that, to be procedurally fair, Friedlander J treated him as being a small supplier throughout 2015. Accordingly, only the fares charged after January 2016 were subject to HST. It did not matter that, given the way the Uber app operated, he had no practical ability to collect HST on his fares. (A subsequent amendment effectively excluded Uber etc. drivers from being small suppliers.)

Neal Armstrong. Summaries of Boylu v. The King, 2025 TCC 192 under ETA s. 123(1) – service - (c), s. 148(1), s. 240(1.1) and Input Tax Credit Information (GST/HST) Regulations, s. 2(a).