http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/site/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/65880/index.do 
1591141 Alberta Ltd. v. M.N.R.[1] (January 7, 2014) was a CPP appeal. The appellant number company had been formed by Mr. Hodge, a former employee of Teamco. The number company provided Mr. Hodge’s services to Teamco. The question was whether the appellant was a successor employer of Teamco; if not, there would be a doubling up of employer contributions:
[1] The only issue in this case arises because Mr. Hodge had previously been an employee of Teamco, incorporated his numbered company, became an employee of that numbered company, and that numbered company then contracted with Teamco to provide his services. That happened three months into 2011, with the result that there is the possibility that employer contributions get doubled up by Teamco and the numbered company.
[2] The numbered company’s position this morning is that it meets the requirements of subsection 9(2) of the Canada Pension Plan and is an employer who immediately succeeded another as the employer of an employee as a result of the formation of a corporation.
[3] The only question I have to decide is whether or not that is correct because if the exception doesn’t apply, then the Crown’s position is correct. So, the question I have to parse is whether the numbered company immediately succeeded Teamco as Mr. Hodge’s employer as a result of the formation of the numbered company.
The court held that neither the “dissolution” nor the “acquisition of business” test for a successor employer applied under the circumstances. Thus if the appeal were to succeed it would have to fall under the “formation of a company” test which the court held did not apply to the circumstances under appeal:
[8] With those two exemptions in mind, I would interpret the concept of formation of a corporation similarly, that is to circumstances where the formation of a corporation results itself in the employees becoming employees of the new company, such as could happen (depending upon applicable corporate law) where you had a company formed on the amalgamation or merger of two or more companies, one of which was the employer Teamco.
[9] On this view, the results test isn’t met by the mere incorporation by the employee of a new company through which he hires out his services for two reasons. It doesn’t meet the results test. The mere incorporation of the corporation doesn’t result in the employment relationship changing. Other steps have to be taken. Also, it doesn’t arise upon the business of Teamco, the original employer, being carried on by the newly-formed corporation in whole or in part the way the other exceptions clearly do.
[10] My decision is that applying this legislation as drafted, the new numbered company, the Appellant in this case, did not succeed Teamco as employer as a result of its incorporation which is the requirement. For that reason, I am dismissing the appeal.
[1] 2014 TCC 2.