The appellant ("CTM") sold mortgage loans made by it to securitization trusts and serviced the sold mortgages including collecting and accounting for payments, and dealing with renewals and defaults. It did not explicitly charge the trusts for these services, but recorded fees from such services in its financial statements. In finding that there was a single supply of a financial service by CTM (failing which, the rule in s. 138 or 139 would have applied), Bowman ACJ stated (at para. 20):
Here we have a sale of mortgages of which the servicing is not only an integral part but is requisite as a matter of commercial exigency. … For someone other than CTM to service the mortgages would, as a practical matter, be commercially infeasible and would be inimical to the raison d'être of the transaction.