The appellant (TD) entered into an affinity program agreement with Aeroplan allowing TD to add the Aeroplan Miles reward feature to its credit cards. Graham J found that Aeroplan was making a single supply under the agreement of points (the Aeroplan Miles) rather than, as contended by the Crown, marketing services given inter alia that “there would have been no point in obtaining marketing services from Aeroplan, exclusive rights to use the Aeroplan logo, and data analytics about existing and potential customers if TD could not provide those customers with Aeroplan Miles” (para. 75) and “amount that TD paid Aeroplan every month under the Agreement was calculated based on the number of Aeroplan Miles that Aeroplan credited to TD cardholders in the month” (para. 76). After stating (at para. 91) that the “predominant element” test for ascertaining a single supply is “not a predominant purpose test” (para. 91), Graham J stated (at para. 93):
There is no question that TD bought the Aeroplan Miles for marketing purposes. But that does not change the fact that what it bought was Aeroplan Miles.
Unlike CIBC, the agreement did not state that marketing and promotion were the predominant element of the supply made.
Graham J went on to find that the Aeroplan Miles purchased by TD were not gift certificates, but were coupons subject to HST.