In discussing the broader scope of the concept of de facto control under s. 256(5.1) as contrasted to that of de jure control under s. 111(5), Rowe J stated (at para. 93):
Such a test would have captured a variety of situations far beyond Parliament’s concern for ensuring that one taxpayer would not benefit from another’s losses. For example, there may exist significant continuity in the corporation’s directors and shareholders, but an onerous loan designed to help a distressed corporation reorient its business could create a relationship of dependence sufficient to trigger the de facto control test, even if the creditor’s influence was never exercised.