The plaintiffs wanted some short-term investments and turned to Mr. Demmers, who had looked after their pension fund and insurance matters as a representative of Manulife. He persuaded them to invest in Devon, calling the corporation “a no-risk investment.” This proved to be bad advice and the plaintiffs lost all of their funds. They unsuccessfully sought compensation from Demmers, who had become bankrupt. In this action the plaintiffs sought compensation from Manulife. It was clear that the plaintiffs thought Demmers was an employee of Manulife and that the Devon investment was one of their products, which it was not. Indicate the arguments that could be raised by both parties and the likely outcome. Would it make any difference to your answer to know that even though Demmers was required to work for Manulife exclusively, Manulife had taken pains to set out in their contract that Demmers was not an employee, but was an independent contractor? What if you were told that Demmers’ offices were located in the Manulife Building, that his calls were directed through the Manulife operator, and that when asked he was encouraged to present himself as a Manulife representative?