A roofing sales account executive who asked to receive much of his compensation through a personal corporation was still an employee of Guycan Ltd., the Ontario Superior Court found in Brunette et al. v. Guycan Ltd., 2026 ONSC 5209. The payment structure did not decide the relationship. The court looked at how the work was actually carried on, including regular salary, employer supervision, tools supplied by the company, limited pricing discretion and the absence of meaningful business risk on the worker's part. Those features pointed toward employment even though invoices had been routed through 360 Property Management Inc.
The dispute did not end with employment status. Brunette also argued that he had been constructively dismissed and sought compensation connected to the end of the relationship, while Guycan relied on a July 2020 text in which he gave two weeks notice. The court treated that message as a clear resignation when read objectively and in context. That finding defeated the claim for common law notice even though Brunette succeeded on other compensation issues.
The contract also required the court to work through disputed commission and bonus language. It relied on the parties' working documents and commercial context rather than Brunette's broader profit based interpretation. Brunette recovered unpaid public holiday pay, base pay, commissions, overage amounts and vacation pay, while Guycan's counterclaim failed. The result is a useful reminder that employment status, resignation and compensation can each turn on different evidence even when they arise from the same working relationship.
For HR teams, the unusual feature is the corporate payment arrangement. A worker can be paid through a company of their own and still function as an employee in substance. The case also shows why a resignation question should not be collapsed into a broader dismissal dispute. The court accepted the employment relationship while still finding that Brunette had clearly chosen to leave.