At issue was whether a Barbados bank subsidiary (Glenhuron ) of the taxpayer, which used equity funds received from its Canadian parent to invest in short-term debt obligations, conducted its business principally with persons with whom it dealt at arm’s length, as required in s. 95(1) - investment business - (a). In finding that what the Crown argued to be the “receipt side” of Glenhuron’s business, i.e., “the capital investments by the Loblaw group [,] were not part of Glenhuron’s conduct of business” Woods JA stated (at paras. 82, 84-85):
For purposes of the ITA, the term “business” generally means “something occupying the time and attention and labour of a man for the purpose of profit” … .
Applying the meaning of “business,” there is no reason to conclude that the capital invested by the Loblaw group would have occupied the time and attention of Glenhuron in any meaningful way.
[T]his approach is consistent with long-standing jurisprudence which draws a distinction between “capital to enable [people] to conduct their enterprises” and “the activities by which they earn their income” … .