Marceau,
J.A.:
—
In
spite
of
the
very
able
argument
of
Mr.
Greene,
we
have
not
been
persuaded
that
the
judgment
of
the
Trial
Division
was
ill-founded.
To
reach
a
valid
conclusion
as
to
whether
the
company
was
entitled
to
the
deductions
claimed,
one
must
properly
assess
the
company's
actual
role.
We
find
that
the
trial
judge
accurately
assessed
the
available
evidence.
We
concur
that,
regardless
of
the
language
employed
in
its
contract
with
the
partnership,
the
company
was
not
primarily
involved
in
the
processing
of
goods
for
sale.
Its
primary
role
was
providing
medical
services
to
human
beings
and
their
medical
advisors.
The
processing
component
of
its
activity,
which
takes
place
mainly
in
the
darkroom
and
involves
only
two
employees,
is
only
a
minor
part
thereof
and
certainly
not
the
primary
source
of
its
income.
That
said,
we
agree
that
this
case
is
substantially
similar
to
that
in
Dixie
X-Ray
Associates
v.
The
Queen,
[1988]
1
C.T.C.
69;
88
D.T.C.
6076
(F.C.T.D.).
It
is
quite
unlike
the
situations
in
Halliburton
Services
Ltd.
v.
The
Queen,
[1985]
2
C.T.C.
52;
85
D.T.C.
5336
(F.C.T.D.);
[1990]
1
C.T.C.
427;
90
D.T.C.
6320
and
Nowsco
Well
Service
Ltd.
v.
The
Queen,
[1988]
2
C.T.C.
24;
88
D.T.C.
6300
(F.C.T.D.);
[1990]
1
C.T.C.
416;
90
D.T.C.
6312
where
the
production
and
eventual
sale
of
the
product
was
found
to
be
the
dominant
feature
of
company
activity.
The
appeal
will
therefore
be
dismissed
with
costs.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content