Prior to the accident the claimant worked in two jobs. The parties agreed that she was self-employed with respect to a bridal boutique company. The parties disagreed on whether the claimant was employed or self-employed with respect to a television and stereo repair shop owned and run by her husband. Adjudicator Johal concluded that the claimant was employed at her husband’s shop, rather than self-employed. The husband was the sole shareholder and director of the company. The claimant was a “vice president” but did not have signing authority. She was primarily responsible for purchasing and monitoring inventory levels. She handled financial matters and operational logistics (company standards, communications, store managers, staff scheduling, store hours, delivery and installation, and marketing). While the claimant was promoted in a newspaper article as a co-owner, the claimant did not write the article and said the description was incorrect. The claimant was paid a salary on a T4, had income tax and CPP contributions deducted from her salary, and filed her income tax returns as an employee. Her salary was in the expected market rate for her role. While she played an important role with the company, she did not have an ownership stake. Adjudicator Johal rejected the insurer’s argument that the claimant and her husband should be considered a partnership, as there was no evidence of a partnership agreement nor sufficient evidence to say that the business was being carried on “in common”.