The rental by the Appellant of cottage properties was a single supply of exempt residential accommodation notwithstanding that the leases gave the tenants the right to use a golf course, a clubhouse, an artificial lake and a tennis court, and the annual amounts that the tenants paid depended upon the costs incurred by the Appellant in providing such additional services. Sharlow J.A. stated (at p. 42-9) that:
"The Appellant's lots may have been more attractive than other lots because of the free access to nearby recreational facilities, but the root of the transaction is a long term residential lease."