After finding that two lump-sum payments made by the taxpayer to an American company were not subject to Part XIII tax under s. 212(1)(d)(i), Heald J.A. went on to find (at p. 6162) that each payment was not a "rent, royalty or similar payment" as described in the preamble to s. 212(1)(d):
"The payments made by the respondent was a lump sum payment, a 'one-time' payment for the duration of the agreement (25 years), renewable for a further 15 years by the respondent without payment of any additional fee; the payment was to be made irrespective of the extent of use by the respondent under the agreements and was unrelated to the profits made by the respondent as the result of any use. The payments made herein seem to be quite unrelated to rentals, royalties or similar payments."