The taxpayer (“EMF”), which was a construction company engaged in large civil engineering projects such as roads, bridges and natural gas networks, contracted with Hydro-Quebec (“HQ”) for the furnishing, installation and operation of an on-site portable concrete-producing facility for the provision of the concrete in the installation of a large hydro-electric dam at a remote location. In finding that such a contract should be characterized for as the manufacturing of goods (the concrete) for sale, rather than as a contract of service, Trudel JCQ stated (at paras. 48, 59, TaxInterpretations translation):
[T]he evidence shows that the true intention of the parties to the contract was more to ensure, in the construction of the dam, that HQ could obtain supplies of concrete-cement for the purposes of its project to construct “La Romaine 3” power station at all times and continuously, taking into account the challenges linked to the unique conditions of this project. …
The Court cannot consider the control measures and contractual requirements of the client as intrinsic characteristics of a service contract, but must rather considers them as representative of HQ's desire to ensure that its supplier would be able to manufacture in sufficient quantity and supply it with concrete-cement in time and place, taking into account the remoteness of its construction site and the extreme geographical and meteorological conditions of a normal construction site.
He went on to find that the exclusion from a manufacturing operation for “construction” did not apply given the distinctness and separation of this operation from the construction business of the company.