I-Iealth Tax and Workplace Safety and Insurance Board schemes, however, the company informed Brick that, if he wished to continue working for LaZBoy, he would he required to sign a document in which he expressly declared that he was an independent contractor and not an employee. That document further stated that LaZ-Eoy was entitled to terminate Ericl-L's services, at any time and for any reason, as long as it provided two months\" notice. The new arrangement also brought a few other changes. The company encouraged Brick to create a corporation and to provide his services through that corporation. It also required him to register for the goods and services tax [GET], and it encouraged him to share ofce space with other individuals in the same position. In most respects, however, the parties\" relationship was unchanged. Erick's responsibilities and compensation remained the same as in the past. The company continued to provide training and promotional materials, it continued to control the products being sold, and it continued to restrict Brick's sales efforts to a certain territory. Nine years after that new arrangement had been created, the parties\" relationship suddenly came to an end. The precise reasons are unclear. Erick suspects that the company decided to sever ties after it learned that a prospective customer had led a statement of claim alleging that Brick had committed a harmful tort. If successful, that tort claim will trigger damages in excess of $5043 Dfl. A. second source of tension involves the circumstances surrounding Brick's termination. LaZEoy insists that, under the terms of the signed contract, Erick was entitled to only two months' notice. In contrast, Erick believes that, after 23 years with the company, he deserves a much more generous severance package. And, in fact, the evidence indicates that an employee in Elriclt's position normally would be entitled to a severance payment equal to 18 months' income. Discuss the legal issues raised in this case