The standards adopted by the minority in the case of Toronto Marlboro Major Junior "A" Hockey Club et al. v. Tonelli et al. to “test” the minors contract were as follows:
I ask whether a prudent and informed parent of a 17-year-old young man who wished to become a professional hockey player, having in mind the realities of the world around him, would approve of this contract. I believe he would. It is true that the contract in this case could have been more beneficial to the infant and the scale could have been tipped more in favour of the infant but that is of little import. It also may not be desirable that member teams of the O.H.A. Major Junior League should occupy such a preferred position as vehicles of entry to the ranks of professional hockey but that too is of little import. It was this specific contract that was available to the infant in this case. The choice was to accept it or go elsewhere and that fact must be given appropriate weight. I do not believe that it could be realistically said that it would have been in the best interest of Tonelli to go elsewhere.

The dissent by Mr Justice Zuber; who felt the defendant had breached his contract, based his decision on this critical question; In September of 1974, was it in the beneficial interest of the 17- year-old John Tonelli to enter into this agreement with the Toronto Marlboros? Zuber came to the conclusion that this young man wished to be a professional hockey player and even though he had before him the opportunity of binding himself to a fairly long period of time to the Marlboros; the result was likely to be the fulfilment of his ambition to become a professional hockey player and secondly, and as a result, the commencement of earnings beyond the dreams of most ordinary people.

The majority however went further and applied a different test of “whether the contract is reasonable and fair.”