The supply of car seat covers to Canadian Tire represented the chief revenue source of a Canadian company("Design"). Design lost this business to a replacement supplier ("Sagaz") as a result of bribes paid to a Canadian Tire executive by the controlling shareholder ("Landow") of a New York corporation ("AIM") which had been retained by Sagaz to promote business with Canadian Tire. Sagaz was found not to have vicarious liability to Design for the tortious conduct of AIM, as vicarious liability would only arise for acts of an employee (or agent) rather than an independent contractor.
AIM was an independent contractor because it was engaged in business on its own account. Central to the inquiry was the fact that AIM decided how much time to devote to Sagaz and how much time to devote to its services for other supply companies (so that "although Sagaz controlled what was done, AIM controlled how it was done" (para. 55). In addition, AIM had its own offices, paid it own costs of conducting its business, and would have realized a loss if these expense had exceeded its commissions.
Major J stated (at para. 47):
Although there is no universal test to determine whether a person is an employee or an independent contractor, I agree with MacGuigan J.A. [in Wiebe] that a persuasive approach to the issue is that taken by Cooke J. in Market Investigations, supra. The central question is whether the person who has been engaged to perform the services is performing them as a person in business on his own account. In making this determination, the level of control the employer has over the worker's activities will always be a factor. However, other factors to consider include whether the worker provides his or her own equipment, whether the worker hires his or her own helpers, the degree of financial risk taken by the worker, the degree of responsibility for investment and management held by the worker, and the worker's opportunity for profit in the performance of his or her tasks.