In Iarutina v. M.N.R., 2011 TCC 114, the Tax Court of Canada ruled that a part-time babysitter was a self-employed contractor, not an employee, and thus the Employment Insurance (EI) and Canada Pension Plan ("CPP") assessments made against the alleged employer should be "vacated" or overturned.

Notably, the court took the intentions of the parties into consideration in making this determination, stating:

[11] The tests for a contract of service/employment versus a contract for services/independent contractor are well settled. The issue of employee versus independent contractor for purposes of the definitions of pensionable employment and insurable employment are to be resolved by determining whether the individual is truly operating a business on his or her own account. This is the question set out by the British courts in Market Investigations, Ltd. v. Minister of Social Security, [1968] 3 All E.R. 732 (Q.B.D.), approved by the Federal Court of Appeal in Wiebe Door Services Ltd. v. M.N.R.[1986] 3 F.C. 553, for purposes of the Canadian definitions of insurable employment and pensionable employment, and adopted by the Supreme Court of Canada in 671122 Ontario Ltd. v. Sagaz Industries Canada Inc., 2001 SCC 59 (CanLII),.... This question is to be decided having regard to all of the relevant circumstances and having regard to a number of criteria or useful guidelines including: 1) the intent of the parties; 2) control over the work; 3) ownership of tools; 4) chance of profit/risk of loss and 5) what has been referred to as the business integration, association or entrepreneur criteria. There is no predetermined way of applying the relevant factors and their relative importance and their relevance will depend upon the particular facts and circumstances of each case.

[12] The decision of the Federal Court of Appeal in Royal Winnipeg Ballet v. M.N.R., 2006 FCA 87 (CanLII)...highlights the particular importance of the parties' intentions and the control criterion in these determinations. This is consistent with the Federal Court of Appeal's later decisions in such cases as National Capital Outaouais Ski Team v. Canada (The Minister of National Revenue), 2008 FCA 132 (CanLII)...Combined Insurance Company of America v. Canada (The Minister of National Revenue), 2007 FCA 60 (CanLII)...and City Water International Inc. v. Canada (The Minister of National Revenue), 2006 FCA 350 (CanLII). The reasons of this Court in Vida Wellness Corporation (Vida Wellness Spa) v. M.N.R., 2006 TCC 534 (CanLII)..., also provide a helpful summary of the significance of the Royal Winnipeg Ballet decision.

[13]  In D.W. Thomas Holdings Inc. v. Canada, 2009 FCA 371 (CanLII)...the Federal Court of Appeal stated in paragraph 5:

Contrary to the appellant's assertion, Miller J. did consider the issue of intention. In keeping with the approach set out in Royal Winnipeg Ballet v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue), 2006 FCA 87 (CanLII)...she examined the evidence to ascertain whether it supported that intention and concluded that it did not.

[14]  In this afternoon's case I am satisfied that the relationship in fact maintained between Ms. Iarutina and the babysitter was consistent with the self employment they both intended and understood it to be.