Canada.

I t concluded that the language of the franchise agreement was not determinative of the reality of the relationship between Mr Bourque and Modern, and that despite the language in the franchise agreement, Mr Bourque was in fact an "employee" as defined by the Act, not an independent contractor. Once Mr Bourque terminated his relationship with Modern, it was Modern, not Mr Bourque, who reassigned the contracts which Mr Bourque had paid to obtain. Similarly, the renewal of the franchise agreement between Mr Bourque and Modern was contingent on Mr Bourque's compliance with the obligations to the Bank as set out in the cleaning services contract. Modern paid Mr Bourque through direct deposit, after deducting amounts for franchising fees, the loans and the products sold by Modern to Mr Bourque. [Extracted from the article]