The appellant, a registered cellphone service provider ("TM"), offered customers "Billing Credits" when they signed up for longer term contracts (e.g., two years). At issue were Billing Credits that were provided to customers who did not purchase their phones directly from TM, so that they were provided as a credit on TM's invoices rather than as a discount on phone purchase. In finding each such credit was not a "coupon" C Miller J stated (at TCC para. 26) that "it is not some thing entitling the customer to the reduction - it is the reduction itself," and (at TCC para. 27):
The use of device suggests that the legislators acknowledged commerce has entered a technological age where paper may indeed become completely outdated. As the Appellant suggested, the standard commercial practice has evolved with the advent of e-commerce and instead of issuing a paper coupon, a customer's entitlement to a reduction in purchase price can be effected electronically. I do not see how this approach, however, helps the Appellant, as it has pointed to nothing held by the customer, electronically or otherwise, entitling the customer to the credit. The customer simply gets it.
Mainville JA's reasons explicitly adopted C Miller J's statements in paras. 26-27.