http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/72958/index.do 
Grand Oak Lawn and Landscape v. M.N.R. (June 19, 2014 – 2014 TCC 203 ) was a CPP/EI decision dealing with whether a worker in a landscape business was and employee or an independent contractor:
[4] Only a few of the pertinent facts were undisputed. The Appellant operated a sole proprietorship under the trade name, Grand Oak Lawn and Landscape. It provided property maintenance and snow removal services to both residential and commercial customers. The Worker was engaged at some time in 2005 to perform property maintenance duties, such as cutting grass and pruning hedges and trees during the summer months and snow removal during the winter months (Transcript, Volume 1, Examination-in-Chief of Scott Heward, at page 82). There was no written agreement governing the terms of their relationship. In October 2005, the Worker had registered a business name, Scott Heward Landscaping. Around this time he also leased a truck. Other than these few facts, the Appellant and the Worker had different recollections of their work relationship.
Ultimately the court accepted the worker’s evidence, concluded that he was an employee and dismissed the appeal:
[31] Applying the two-step test, set out in Connor Homes, to the facts before me, supports a finding that the Worker was an employee. The ultimate question to be asked, after reviewing the totality of the evidence, is: “Whose business is it?” Or, as Respondent Counsel succinctly framed the question: “… [W]ho had the right to call the shots?” (Transcript, Volume 2, page 56). The Worker’s response concisely sums up the nature of their relationship as follows:
I pretty much just showed up and did the work. He talked to all customers. He told me what time we were starting and — yeah, he made all the calls, all the shots, called the shots.
When we got to each property he would say what I was to do at each one and how we would split up the work.
(Transcript, Volume 1, page 86)
[32] Despite able argument by Appellant Counsel, I have no hesitation in concluding that this was the Appellant’s business. All of the Wiebe Door factors support the conclusion that the Worker was not in business on his own account.
[33] For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed without costs.