http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/71437/index.do 
766743 Ontario Limited (Soben Mgmt Ltd.) v. M.N.R. (May 2, 2014 – 2014 TCC 133) involved whether a dental hygienist was engaged in insurable/pensionable employment for EI/CPP purposes:
[1] The Appellants appeal the determination of the Minister that a worker, Ms. Balastros, a dental hygienist (the “worker”), was engaged in insurable and pensionable employment with the Appellants at their Dental Clinic, Unite Here Wellness and Dental Centre (the “Dental Clinic”).
[2] All of the dental hygienists at the Dental Clinic were described as self-employed independent contractors. In reassessing, the Minister characterized Ms. Balastros’ services as those delivered under a contract of service rather than a contract for services or, in more common language, as an employee and not that of an independent contractor. This is the relevant distinction at law for the purpose of subsection 2(1) of the
Canada Pension Plan, S.C. 1996, c. 23 (the “CPP”) and subsection 5(1) of the
Employment Insurance Act, R.S.C. 1985 c. C-8 (the “EI Act”). The Dental Clinic was operated solely to provide dental hygienic services and related dental care to employees of various hotels in Toronto organized within the Unite Here Union, Local #75. Various dentists, dental hygienists, denturists and related ancillary dental health care providers worked at the Dental Clinic.
In a somewhat odd twist each of the hygienists at the Dental Clinic was required to signed an “Employment Letter” which, among other things, confirmed that they were independent contractors.
The Tax Court judged reviewed the well known factors distinguishing employees from independent contractors and found that Clinic hygienists were employees:
[24] Supervision and control, when not interdicted by the overlay of the CDHO [College of Dental Hygienists of Ontario] code of conduct and its oversight as a mandatory regulatory college, leaves the Court with a situation where each patient was also seen by a licenced dentist during each worker’s cleaning. The Dental Clinic organized patients, bookings, replacements workers, staff meetings, holidays, absences, operatories and the Dental Clinic marshalled the conduct of and paid for remedial work.
[25] Tools and equipment, apart from some favored hand tools (themselves now forbidden), were uniformly and consistently provided, maintained, cleaned and replaced by the Dental Clinic. Whatever obfuscated charge-back fee there may have been for such tools and equipment appears to have been accounted for more tangibly in the Dental Clinic’s business model than by any focused and impactful adjustment to the worker’s rate of pay.
[26] Aside from increasing hours of work or working elsewhere there were no opportunities for the worker to enhance revenue or reduce costs by the manipulation and exploitation of capital, labour and materials. The worker attended the Dental Clinic, worked the hours scheduled and returned home. The substitution of sub-contracted labour by the worker was forbidden. There were no other collateral or related endeavors in combination with the service recipient (the Dental Clinic) demonstrating the worker’s ownership, propriety of clients or provision of value added services. There were no other indicia of a separate business operation: trade name, corporation or sole proprietorship, rendered invoices, business identification numbers or other recognizable business structures, customs or dealings.
[27] Risk of loss did not exist. Mandatory professional liability insurance is not evidence of such a risk in this context. As stated earlier in these reasons, there was no capital, labour or materials at risk by the worker. Such a business risk relates to the obligation of an independent contractor to provide contracted services, even where the negotiated revenue received for such services may not exceed by a sufficient margin (or at all) the labour, capital and/or material costs of production and delivery of the services. The costs were nominal and commensurate with those of an employee and no someone in business. Where the costs of such services provided are not comprised of such expenses of delivery and/or production, objectively finding the existence of a distinct business becomes more difficult. Save the costs of work uniforms, professional accreditation renewal and transportation to the same workplace each day, all of which were fixed costs borne by employee and independent contractor alike, there were no other costs impacting or affecting a potential profit or a correlative risk of loss for the worker.
[28] Based upon the entire arrangement as revealed by analysis of the objective factors, there is only one business present here: the Dental Clinic. The final three factors analyzed above clearly draw such a picture within that singular frame. The hierarchy of control and supervision of the “services” may be ranked in priority: the highest level was primarily through regulatory authority usurped by the CDHO; the next was secondarily exercised by the Dental Clinic in the protection of its business; and the lowest level of control was possessed by the worker in carrying out her scheduled, regular and daily job as a regulated dental hygienist in the part-time service of the Dental Clinic.
[29] In conclusion, while the agreement among the parties was somewhat equivocal as to subjective intention (at least to the extent of the Employment Letter), the analysis of the Wiebe Door factors was not; the factual objective reality reveals much greater indicia of employment than that of an independent contractor in business on her own account.