[2] Alouche defended against the lawsuit, and counterclaimed against Grad, Grosman, and all companies they controlled[2] on the grounds of common employer doctrine, the oppression remedy of the Ontario Business Corporations Act, and fraudulent conveyance.

[2] Relief via the oppression remedy was dismissed as inappropriate, as the judge deemed that the reorganization of companies owned by Grad and Grosman was "not undertaken for the purpose of depriving Alouche of recovery of his judgment against Best Beaver".

Specifically cited was the judgement in the case of Sinclair v. Dover Engineering Services Ltd. (1987) at the Supreme Court of British Columbia, in which judge Wood found that:[2] As long as there exists a sufficient degree of relationship between the different legal entities who apparently compete for the role of employer, there is no reason in law or in equity why they ought not all to be regarded as one for the purpose of determining liability for obligations owed to those employees who, in effect, have served all without regard for any precise notion of to whom they were bound in contract.

[2] In particular, the term "employer" should recognize "the complexity of modern corporate structures" without revoking or denying "legitimate entitlements of wrongfully dismissed employees".

[2] The judgement also stated that a contract by itself cannot be determinative of an employer-employee relationship, as this would allow employers to evade responsibility to employees by establishing shell companies with no assets.

[2] The conclusion stated that the "consortium of Grad and Grosman companies which operated For Your Eyes Only" was the true employer of Alouche at the time of his dismissal in June 1993.

[2] The conclusion of the Court of Appeal was reaffirmed in subsequent rulings, including Jakl v. Russell Tire & Automotive Centre (1990) Inc. in 2005[6] and King v. 1416088 Ontario Ltd. in 2014.

[7] In a 2005 article in Canadian HR Reporter, Stuart Rudner stated that Downtown Eatery (1993) v. Ontario was the "leading case with respect to the issue of common employers" in Canada.