http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/109129/index.do 
Model Roofing Company Inc. v. M.N.R. (April 13, 2015 – 2015 TCC 89, Campbell Miller J.).
Précis: This is a decision on CPP and EI appeals. The case turned on whether a worker, Mr. Zeru, for a roofing contractor was an employee or an independent contractor. The worker wanted to be an employee; the contractor believed he was an independent contactor. Mr. Zeru was paid not by the hour but by the number of bundles of shingles he could install. The contractor and Mr. Zeru had a falling out with Mr. Zeru suing the contractor for close to $20,000. The court found that Mr. Zeru was not a reliable witness and did not accept any of his evidence. The Court held that the intention of the parties was that Mr. Zeru would be an independent contactor. The control test strongly favoured that conclusion. The tool test favoured an employment status. The chance of profit/risk of loss test was neutral. As a result the Court concluded, on balance, that Mr. Zeru was an independent contactor.
Decision: The Court first looked to the intention of the parties:
[5] Since the Federal Court of Appeal in 1392644 Ontario Inc. o/a
Connor Homes v The Minister of National Revenue the courts have undertaken the two‑step approach to the employment versus independent contractor analysis. First, determine if there is a mutual intention between the parties to the agreement, and, if so, review the usual factors (control, ownership of tools, chance of profit/risk of loss and any other relevant factors) in the context of this mutual intention. Clearly, Mr. Desta, on behalf of the Appellant, intended there to be an independent contractor arrangement. He charged GST, did not make source deductions and simply had no intention that Mr. Zeru was to be an employee. Mr. Zeru, at trial, claims he was an employee. He suggested that obtaining a GST number, shortly before he started with Model Roofing, was for another business which he never actually undertook. I do not believe him. He claims he never prepared invoices. I do not believe him. Notwithstanding his position at trial, an objective view of his behaviour in 2012 suggests to me he did indeed intend to have independent contractor status.
[Footnote omitted]
Next it turned to the question of control:
[7] As the Supreme Court of Canada indicated in the case of 671122 Ontario Ltd. v Sagaz Industries Canada Inc., control is always a significant factor, yet here, where the worker, Mr. Zeru, is an experienced roofer, it is not particularly helpful to look at the most common control factor being daily supervision of how the work is performed. Mr. Zeru did not require such supervision and indeed there was none.
The Crown therefore points to several other factors that suggest control by the Appellant:
1. Inspection of the work at the conclusion of the job. I do not see why such inspection anymore reflects employment than independent contractor. I would assume a main contractor would inspect the work regardless of who actually performed it.
2. The Appellant was responsible to the client for the quality of the work.
3. The Appellant set the schedule. With respect, my understanding is that the Appellant would get a job and the schedule would be set more by the client and the nature of the work. According to Mr. Desta, the workers would simply work on the job until concluded.
4. The rate of pay was determined by the Appellant. While Mr. Desta did acknowledge he set the price per bundle there was no detailed account of how this was done or whether it was an industry norm for example.
[8] I accept that from a review of these factors alone there is some slight favouring of an employment arrangement, but only slight. But then I consider the following factors:
1. Mr. Zeru could refuse a job.
2. Mr. Zeru could work for competitors and, in fact, he did work for a competitor.
3. Mr. Zeru was not required to track his hours.
4. Mr. Zeru could hire helpers or sub-contractors although he did not do that.
[9] I find these factors more than offset the factors relied upon by the Respondent and, viewed through the prism of a mutual understanding of independent contractor status, firmly support that independent contractor status.
[Footnote omitted]
The Court found that the tools test favoured employment but the chance of profit/risk of loss test was neutral. The Court concluded, on balance, that Mr. Zeru was an independent contractor.