Driver Inc. Is a Cancer, but It’s Death May Claim the Host

On a typical Friday evening, while Mike McCarron is cruising to the cottage listening to classic rock, I’m often sitting across from clients who are still trying to figure out how to outmaneuver the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA). Mike thinks Driver Inc. is dead. I wish I shared his optimism. I hate the Driver Inc. model with a passion—it is a blight on our industry that exploits the vulnerable and punishes the honest—but I am not yet ready to write its obituary.

In fact, what I am seeing on the ground suggests that Driver Inc. isn’t dying; it’s mutating. And in its mutation, it might just take down the traditional owner-operator model as we know it.

The Unfairness of the Status Quo

Let’s be clear: Driver Inc. is an ethical and legal disaster. For the truck driver, it is a mirage of “independence” that strips away every safety net Canadian society provides. No EI, no CPP contributions, no WSIB, and no job security. These drivers are often newcomers who don’t realize they are one audit away from a life-altering tax bill.

For the trucking companies that play by the rules—the ones paying source deductions, providing benefits, and maintaining rigorous safety standards—Driver Inc. is a slap in the face. It creates a two-tier system where the “cheats” can underbid legitimate carriers by 20% to 30% simply by offloading their social and tax obligations onto the driver’s back. It is a race to the bottom that devalues the profession and turns a high-skill job into a form of indentured servitude.

The New (and maybe old) Loophole: The Lease-Back Scheme

While the federal government’s Budget 2025 has allocated $77 million to crack down on this scheme, the operators I know aren’t closing up shop. They are “reconfiguring.”

The most common strategy they are exploring is a leasing model. The carrier leases the company truck back to the incorporated driver. On paper, it looks like a traditional owner-operator setup. The driver is “incorporated” and they “lease” their equipment. They believe this paper trail will let them fly under the CRA radar.

But here is the catch—and it’s a big one.The “Exclusivity” Trap

In the trucking world, the “plate” (the registration) is owned by the CVOR holder. That same CVOR holder also supplies the insurance. Because of how Ontario (and most of Canada) regulates safety and liability, a driver who leases a truck from a carrier is effectively “tethered” to that carrier. They cannot take that truck and go haul a load for a competitor on Tuesday if their main carrier is slow.

The CRA has a very simple, very sharp knife for these arrangements: the “Four-Fold” test. One of the primary pillars of that test is Independence. The CRA asks: Is this worker free to provide services to other clients?

In these new lease-back models, the answer is a resounding “No.” The driver is restricted to one company by the very nature of the CVOR and insurance requirements.

The Unintended Consequence: The End of the Owner-Operator?

This is where my skepticism turns into genuine concern for the whole industry.
If we demand that the CRA crack down on any driver who is “restricted to one company,” we are inadvertently pointing a loaded gun at thousands of legitimate, hardworking owner-operators.

Historically, many owner-operators have worked exclusively for one carrier for years. They own their trucks, but for ease of administration, they run under the carrier’s authorities. If the CRA decides that “exclusivity plus lack of equipment mobility” equals an employee relationship, the traditional owner-operator model – the backbone of our industry – could be declared illegal overnight.

We risk throwing the baby out with the bathwater. In our zeal to kill the “Driver Inc.” scam, we may create a regulatory environment where the only legal way to drive a truck is as a T4 employee.

A Wary Eye on the Horizon

Mike McCarron is right that the “money is getting smarter” and the “culture is changing.” But “stupidity” has a funny way of surviving when there is money to be made. My fear is that as the CRA tightens the noose on Driver Inc. using the “exclusivity” argument, they won’t stop at the scammers.

We need to eradicate Driver Inc. to save our industry’s soul. But we must be incredibly careful that in performing the surgery, we don’t kill the legitimate owner-operator host that keeps our economy moving.
The end may be near, but it’s going to be a lot messier than a Friday night drive to the cottage.

Chris Harris
CEO & Top Dawg
Safety Dawg Inc.
905-973-7056
chris@safetydawg.com
@safety_dawg (twitter)