http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/71806/index.do 
Saindon v. M.N.R. (May 23, 2014 – 2014 TCC 172) were EI and CPP appeals by Mr. Saindon from a decision that his worker, Mr. Giesbrecht, was engaged in insurable and pensionable employment. The background facts were straightforward:
[3] The Appellant operated a trucking business, using for that purpose two trucks which he owned.
[4] The business was operated as a proprietorship on a year-round basis.
[5] The evidence shows that the Appellant entered into agreements with Flying Eagle Transport (“Flying”) and Day & Ross Transport for the supply of a truck and driver.
[6] The Worker was hired to work as the driver of the truck that the Appellant supplied to Flying.
[7] The Worker received his instructions from Flying’s dispatchers.
[8] The evidence shows that the Worker could not hire a helper or a replacement driver.
[9] The Appellant paid all of the costs associated with the operation of the truck by the Worker save for tickets for road and safety infractions committed by the Worker.
[10] At times when there were no deliveries or pick ups to be made with the Appellant’s truck under the Flying contract, Flying would assign the Worker warehouse duties.
[11] The Worker earned a set wage of $17.00 per hour. The Appellant charged Flying $48.00 per hour for the trucking services and paid the Worker at his hourly rate. Flying paid the Appellant $17.00 per hour for the Worker’s warehouse duties and the Appellant in turn paid the Worker.
The court applied the well known tests of control, ownership of tools, chance of profit and risk of loss. These all led to the conclusion that the Mr. Giesbrecht was an employee.
As a result the appeals were dismissed.