In finding that an acquisition of seismic data by the taxpayer, acting through the vendor ("Compton") as his agent, was an arm's length transaction, Rothstein J. stated (at para. 72):
"Had the trial judge found that McLarty had subordinated his entire decision making power to Compton as his agent, his dealings with Compton as vendor would not have been at arm's length. He would not be making an independent decision about the purchase but would have left that completely to Compton. But these are not the facts found or inferences drawn by the trial judge."
Rothstein J. also cited with approval the adoption in Cundill of paragraph 29 of IT-419R2 as a list of factors that bear on whether a relationship is at arm's length.