The taxpayer, which derived its revenues from contracts for the demolition of buildings or other works, and from the sale of materials resulting from its alleged processing activities on the demolition sites, successfully maintained its position that its recycling activities, i.e., sorting materials, cutting to size, taking out the hardware, separating various items, removing nails and screws, etc., were processing activities. In finding that containers used by it in sorting materials obtained at the demolition sites qualified as Class 29 properties on the basis of being “used directly or indirectly by him in Canada primarily in the manufacturing or processing of good for sale or lease,” Garon TCCJ stated (at p. 897):
[I]t is indisputable that these containers, which were installed on the sites, were used for sorting materials. …[U]sing containers was a practical and economic manner of sorting the materials and other items which were ultimately to be sold or otherwise disposed of by the appellant. In terms of time, this stage, sorting the materials and other items, came, at least in the vast majority of cases, immediately after the processing work. From all appearances, the sorting work is closely connected to the work of processing the materials taken from the demolished buildings and works, which was carried out on the sites. These containers were therefore used at least indirectly by the appellant in Canada primarily for the processing of goods for sale. These containers were indeed also used to transport goods to the customers… . However, the fact remains that these containers were used at a point that was prior and essential to sorting the materials….