Words and Phrases - "treatment"

The appellant was a professional health corporation that provided the services of an orthodontic specialist. In finding that the appellant made one supply of orthodontic treatment to a dental patient or two supplies, consisting of an orthodontic appliance and an orthodontic service, Campbell J stated (at paras 21 and 22):

The orthodontic appliance on its own is not a useful item nor are the maintenance and adjustment services on their own without the appliance. Neither the appliance nor the service on their own can achieve the patient’s goal or objective of correcting or treating their dental issues. …

In addition, the appliance and services were provided for and purchased together under a single contract for a single consideration. Although the orthodontic appliance was individually identified on the contracts for each patient, this was simply identified as 35 percent of the total fee… .

On this basis, she found (at para 35):

… The supply of orthodontic treatments were dental services, consisting of a supply of consultative, diagnostic, treatment or other health care services rendered by a medical practitioner to patients and as such are exempt supplies within the parameters of section 5 of Schedule V, Part II. Further, the single supply of orthodontic treatment by the Appellant in its dental clinic was an exempt supply pursuant to section 2 of Schedule V, Part II of the Act because the supply was made by an operator of a health care facility in respect to institutional health care service rendered to a patient of the facility.