Gouin-Toussaint, September 1989 Revenue Canada Round Table (Dec. 89 Access Letter, ¶1040)

A non-resident individual involved in the battery-making business in the United States controlled a Canadian corporation of which the non-resident and a Canadian resident individual held an equal number of shares and had equal rights and obligations, in light of the fact that the non-resident shareholder had all the technical expertise required to operate the business and could withdraw his support at any time. The fact that, for the time being, it was not advantageous for the non-resident to exercise his influence in this fashion did not preclude the finding of de facto control.

A daughter who had de jure control of a corporation operating three boutiques was unlikely in the circumstances to run her business independently from her mother's shoe-manufacturing company in light of the significant purchases of the daughter's company from the mother's company, the daughter's lack of practical experience, the financing which the daughter's company had received from the mother's bank, and the employment by the daughter's corporation of a key employee of the mother's corporation.

A public corporation and a private corporation plan to each acquire ½ of the common shares of a third corporation ("Opco"). The public corporation, which was experienced in the field in which Opco was to operate was to manage Opco and supervise the construction of a plant in the marketing of the products, and the shareholders' agreement between the public corporation and the private corporation ensured that they would have equal rights and obligations. RC, since it considered that only the rights and obligations established by the documents could be considered, considered that it was impossible to declare that there was de facto control of Opco by the public corporation.