The auditing firm (“DMCL”) issued an invoice for audit services rendered to the appellant which it claimed not to have seen until it was obtained and presented to it by Crown counsel during the trial. The payment arrangements for the services of DCML were partially evidence by an initial retainer letter and then by an email sent a number of months later by DMCL to the appellant, to fix the audit fee at a level higher than that originally estimated, and provide for a payment schedule.
After noting (at para. 65) that “the information required by subsection 169(4) … may be contained collectively in multiple documents,” Sommerfeldt J noted that whether s. 3(a)(ii) or (iii) of the Input Tax Credit Information (GST/HST) Regulations applied turned on whether DCML had issued an invoice to the appellant. In this regard, he noted after quoting definitions of “issue” (para. 71):
[I]n order to issue an invoice, not only must the invoice be created, but it must also be sent to the client or customer.
Accordingly, it was possible that the DMCL invoice had not been issued to the appellant. However, even if it had not been so issued, so that the applicable requirement was in s. 3(a)(iii), the supporting documentation did not actually specify the dates on which the payments had been made.