http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/110422/index.do 
Adhar v. M.N.R. (June 26, 2015 – 2015 TCC 166, Woods J.).
Précis: Mark Ahern worked for Mr. Adhar (operating as Peacock Painting) for 16 years prior to the termination of the relationship in 2012. The Minister determined that at the date of the termination Mr. Ahern was engaged in pensionable and insurable employment. Mr. Adhar appealed to the Tax Court. The Court held that the relationship of the parties was extremely loose and not typical of an employment relationship. Accordingly Mr. Adhar’s appeal was allowed.
Decision: The Court reviewed the traditional factors at issue in CPP/EI appeals.
The Court found Mr. Ahern’s evidence that he thought he was an employee not credible:
[18] Overall, Mr. Ahern’s testimony that he thought he was an employee does not stack up with the evidence as a whole and I find that it is not reliable.
[19] I would conclude that the parties formed a mutual intention that Mr. Ahern be an independent contractor. I now turn to the factors in Wiebe Door to determine if the relationship was consistent with the intention.
The control test favoured an independent contractor status:
[22] Mr. Ahern was engaged on a per job basis and there was no obligation on either party beyond that. The evidence also suggests that Mr. Ahern had considerable freedom to take time off in the middle of a job and he refused to work overtime.
The remaining three factors were somewhat of a mixed bag:
Whether worker provides own equipment
[24] The evidence was that Mr. Ahern could have used equipment provided by Mr. Abhar, but he chose to use his own tools. This factor tilts slightly to an independent contractor relationship.
Whether worker manages and assumes financial risk
[25] The evidence suggests that Mr. Ahern did not generally manage or assume financial risk as an entrepreneur would. This slightly favours employment.
Whether worker has opportunity for profit
[26] Since Mr. Ahern was paid on an hourly basis, he did not have an opportunity for profit as an entrepreneur would. This factor slightly favours employment.
In the end it boiled down to the fact that the loose nature of the relationship suggested that Mr. Ahern was acting as an independent contactor:
[27] The key factor in this case is the loose relationship between the parties. Neither party had a commitment to the other for a period of time as there often is in a traditional employment relationship. In addition, Mr. Ahern had considerable freedom in deciding his hours of work. In my view, the objective facts are consistent with the parties’ mutual intention that Mr. Ahern be an independent contractor.
As a result the appeal was allowed.