http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/72962/index.do 
1165632 Ontario Limited v. The Queen (June 5, 2014 – 2014 TCC 189 ) was a decision dealing with whether two corporations were engaged in personal services businesses:
[3] The appellants are corporations, the shares of which are owned by Tony Ramagnano and his spouse, Noemi Ramagnano.
[4] Prior to 1998, Mr. Ramagnano owned and operated a business of selling building supplies, especially drywall, under the name “Metro.” The business was located in Mississauga, Ontario.
[5] In 1998, Mr. Ramagnano sold the business to Dryco, which was a corporation based in Vancouver, British Columbia. The business continued to operate under the Metro name and Mr. Ramagnano managed the business under contracts between Dryco and the appellants. It appears that the arrangement has been satisfactory to all parties
[6] For taxation years ending July 31, 2009 and July 31, 2010, the appellants were reassessed to disallow the small business deduction with respect to income earned from this arrangement. The amounts that were disallowed were $6,353 and $706 for the 2009 taxation year and $3,385 and $299 for the 2010 taxation year.
The court examined the relevant factors:
[26] Control – I would conclude that this factor points to a relationship similar to employment. It is true that Dryco was a relatively passive owner and that Mr. Ramagnano felt free to manage the business as he saw fit as long as the business did well. However, the test is whether Dryco had the legal right to control, and not whether the worker feels subject to that control (Pluri Vox Media Corp. v The Queen, 2012 FCA 295, para 14). Section 4 of the Management Agreement suggests that Dryco had complete authority to direct Mr. Ramagnano as it saw fit. This level of control is incompatible with an independent contractor relationship.
[27] Tools – This factor also points to an employment-like relationship. The appellants were not required to provide any equipment to perform the management services. Everything was supplied by Dryco. It appears that Mr. Ramagnano chose to have a home office, but this is common in modern employment relationships.
[28] Opportunity for profit – I find this factor to be neutral. The appellants had a chance of profit through incentives, but this is common in terms of employment with senior executives.
[29] Risk of loss – Since the appellants did not have any material risk of loss, I find that this factor favours a relationship similar to employment.
In the result the court concluded that the appellants were engaged in a personal services business:
[30] I have concluded that Mr. Ramagnano would have been an employee of Dryco were it not for the existence of the appellants. This is evident from the obligation that the appellants had to promote the interest of Dryco, as well as from a consideration of the usual Wiebe Door factors.
As a result the appeals were dismissed.