http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/72218/index.do 
Ontario Real Estate Association v. The Queen (June 20, 2014 – 2014 TCC 190) was an EI/CPP appeal dealing with whether Test Centre Operators and Assistant Test Centre Operators providing services to the Ontario Real Estate Association were engaged in insurable/pensionable employment.
[3] OREA is a corporation with its head office in Don Mills Ontario. OREA provides all of the necessary and required registration courses for real estate professionals in Ontario on behalf of the Real Estate Council of Ontario (“RECO”). RECO is the province’s real estate professional regulatory body. In order to become a real estate professional in Ontario, an individual must complete a program of study, pass examinations and be registered with RECO. OREA is registered under the Ontario Private Colleges Act of 2005, SO 2005, c 28, Sch L, as a private career college. OREA has been contracted by RECO to provide pre-registration, articling and broker education programmes and to administer qualifying exams. OREA runs test centres throughout Ontario. Exams are usually written on Saturdays. When a candidate is prepared to write an exam, he or she must select an examination date and location at a test centre located in Ontario.
[4] OREA engaged workers to operate the various test centres across the province. These workers were designated as Test Centre Operators (“TCOs”). The TCOs may obtain the services of Assistant Test Centre Operators (“ATCOs”) to assist with operating the test centres.
[5] The TCOs, the ATCOs are engaged pursuant to an “Authorization” which they sign (see Exhibit A-3 for TCOs and Exhibit A-4 for ATCOs). Appended to the Authorization is a set of “Guidelines” for invigilating the OREA examinations. The Authorization confirms that the workers are to operate a “Test Centre”. The appended Guidelines describe what was expected of the TCOs and ATCOs in terms of receiving exam forms, keeping the exam forms secure, reconciling the number and nature of the exams with the number of candidates, the ratio of ATCOs to the number of students writing exams, verifying the identity of the candidates, the instructions that are to be provided to the candidates prior to and after writing the exam, and other common sense guidelines that are necessary to ensure that a fair exam is administered.
[6] The duties of the TCOs and ATCOs included:
a) Verifying the identity of examination writers;
b) Ensuring the examinations begin and end on time;
c) Ensuring that latecomers are not allowed to enter and disrupt the examination;
d) Monitoring examinations to prevent cheating;
e) Prevent examination writers from creating disturbances; and
f) Preventing examination writers from removing questions, answers or notes regarding the examination from the test centre.
The court reviewed the well-known factors and concluded:
1. The intention of the parties was that the TCOs and ATCOs act as independent contractors.
2. OREA exercised little control or supervision over the TCOs and ATCOs.
3. The work did not require much in the way of tools and equipment; essentially the OREA just provided premises for the exams to be written.
4. TCOs were entitled to chose their own ATCOs.
5. The workers profit varied with the number of assignments they were willing to accept and the amount they spent on unreimbursed supplies for the exams.
6. There was little integration between the workers and the OREA business, for example they were not provided with any business cards, offices or telephone numbers nor did they hold themselves out as representatives of OREA.
As a result the court concluded that the workers were not engaged in insurable/pensionable employment and the appeals were allowed.