Generally not. The requirement is one continuous year of employment by the qualifying organization abroad within the preceding three years, and an independent contracting relationship is usually not employment for this purpose.
The distinction the payroll record makes visible
Companies that grow by engaging specialists as contractors before hiring them run into this repeatedly. The rule asks for employment by the qualifying organization, and the evidence normally offered is payroll: source deductions, employment records, a contract of employment, a place in the organizational chart. An arrangement in which the specialist invoiced through a business they own, set their own hours, carried their own insurance and could take other clients has the hallmarks of independent contracting, and asserting otherwise after the fact rarely succeeds. Where a person has both histories, the cleanest course is to count only the employment period, confirm it is continuous, confirm it sits inside the three-year window and file once it is complete. Trying to bridge a gap with a contract that is described differently in hindsight creates a credibility problem that is harder to fix than a short wait.
Hypothetical example: A Canadian avionics-diagnostics company wants to send a technician who configured its fault-isolation library to its U.S. affiliate. The first review should establish a complete year of employment abroad within the three years before filing, then separate the technician's unusual company knowledge from ordinary familiarity with a product. Payroll records settle the employment period; version-control history, training materials, and escalation logs show the knowledge. A title such as senior specialist is not proof that the expertise is uncommon or advanced. If the worker is still short of the qualifying year, waiting is often safer than reconstructing contractor time as employment. The five-year maximum also matters: the company should calculate prior L time before promising a lengthy assignment.