Words and Phrases - "artificial"

Dr. Axelrod, a dentist, provided dentures, bridges, crowns and implants and reconstruction materials for more than half of a tooth, which the parties agreed constituted artificial teeth within the meaning of Sched. VI, Pt. II, s. 11. Dr. Axelrod took the position that when he provided an artificial tooth to a patient, he was making a zero-rated supply under that provision. CRA reassessed him on the basis that he was making the supplies of artificial teeth, as acquired by him from the laboratory, to the patients as zero-rated supplies pursuant to Sched. VI, Pt. II, s. 11, and making supplies of services (regarding diagnosis, preparation work (such as measuring and taking impressions) and installation) that were exempted pursuant to Sched. V, Pt. II, s. 5. Sommerfeldt J instead found that Dr. Axelrod was making a single supply of exempt services pursuant to Sched. V, Pt. II, s. 5, so that his appeal was dismissed.

Before so finding, Sommerfeldt J first found that Dr. Axelrod was making a single supply to such patients, stating (at para. 30):

It is difficult to imagine that a patient of Dr. Axelrod would have wanted to acquire dentures, a bridge, a crown or an implant without Dr. Axelrod having first done all of the preliminary work necessary to ensure that the particular prosthesis would fit and function properly in the patient’s mouth, and without Dr. Axelrod actually installing the prosthesis in the patient’s mouth. Similarly, all of the dental services rendered by Dr. Axelrod would have made no sense if they had not related to the prosthesis desired by the patient. To use the language of O.A. Brown, both the supply of the prosthesis and the supply of the dental services were integral parts or components of the overall supply. … It is even more evident that all aspects of Dr. Axelrod’s reconstruction, in a patient’s mouth, of a significant portion of a tooth, using appropriate filling or restorative materials, were integral components of a composite supply.

He went on to indicate (at para. 55) that, to determine the character of the single supply, it was “necessary to identify all of the elements of the supply and then determine which element gave the supply its commercial efficacy, or in other words which element caused the payment of the consideration,” and then stated (at para. 57) that in light of the importance of the professional services provided by Dr. Axelrod, “the predominant element of the supply made by Dr. Axelrod to a patient was his professional dental services, and not the prosthesis per se.”

Sommerfeldt J further found that if, contrary to his single-supply analysis, Dr. Axelrod were regarded as making supplies that came within both Sched. V, Pt. II, s. 5 and Sched. VI, Pt. II, s. 11:

the exempt status of the supplies will preclude Dr. Axelrod’s dental practice (which is a business) from being a commercial activity, by reason of the exception at the end of paragraph (a) of the definition of the term “commercial activity” in subsection 123(1) of the ETA.