http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/site/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/63238/index.do 
2177936 Ontario Ltd. v. M.N.R.[1] (October 4, 2013) is a CPP decision dealing with whether a cab driver (Mr. Dickey) was engaged in pensionable employment by the cab owner (Mr. Gill). As with most of these cases there is a thorough review of the facts as well as an extensive review of the applicable law. The court’s decision that Mr. Dickey was not engaged in pensionable employment was not unexpected:
[27] In evaluating the factors to distinguish employment from independent contractor, it will seldom be the case that all factors point overwhelmingly in one direction. There would be no need for a trial of the issue. It will more often be the situation where some factors might point one way and other factors another way. Some factors may be neutral. It is always necessary to bear in mind what the analysis is addressing – whose business is it? There is no magic formula. There is seldom a bright line. It is a matter of degree, and as that degree narrows, so too does the distinction: the expression “dependent contractor” comes to mind.
[28] What it really comes down to is whether a review of the factors supports Mr. Dickey being part of Mr. Gill’s business or supports Mr. Dickey carrying on his own business of providing driving services. Based primarily on the elements reviewed in connection with control, I conclude that Mr. Dickey was carrying on his own business and was therefore not in pensionable employment. The Appeal is allowed and the Minister’s decision that Mr. Dickey was in pensionable employment is vacated.
[1] 2013 TCC 317.