Canada ( Attorney General ) v. Charbonneau
Application for judicial review of T.C.C. decision holding respondent engaged in insurable employment-Application allowed-Contract of employment or contract of enterprise-Apart from tests laid down by Court in Wiebe Door Services Ltd. v. M.N.R.,  3 F.C. 553 (C.A.), such as, on one hand, degree of control, ownership of tools of work, chance of profit and risk of loss, and, on other hand, integration, issue always, once genuine contract established, whether relationship of subordination between parties such that contract one of employment, or whether degree of autonomy such that contract one of enterprise or for services-Canada (Attorney General) v. Rousselle et al. (1990), 124 N.R. 339 (F.C.A.) applied-Respondent, owner of $15,000 skidder for which paid maintenance and repair, with feller he had himself recruited, cut trees for forestry business-Contract with business not very stringent-Respondent paid by volume and contract did not specify volume-Prima facie contract of enterprise-Supervision of work every second day and measuring volume every two weeks do not create herein relationship of subordination and consistent with requirements of contract of enterprise-T.C.C. Judge erred in concluding [translation] "there could be no chance of profit and risk of loss"-Respondent paid based on volume and mere fact his skidder had broken down would be sufficient for him to find himself with nothing.