The appellant entered into 14 purchase agreements with a property developer to acquire lots. The appellant assigned 12 agreements to third parties for $820,865 - $634,760 for deposit recoveries (i.e., reflecting that deposits paid by the appellant to the developer would now be held by the vendor to be credited to the assignees on completion of the purchases) and $186,105 in assignment fees. The Minister applied the single-supply doctrine to treat the entire amount as consideration for an interest in real property.
Hogan J granted the taxpayer's appeal. He discussed (at paras. 13-14) the indicia in O.A. Brown, that "a factor indicative of a single supply is the degree of interconnection and interdependence of the elements" and that "conversely, a factor indicative of multiple supplies is that each alleged separate supply could be purchased individually," and referred favourably to the analysis in Barnett 2011. The assignment of the purchase agreements and of rights to the deposits were not inextricably linked, as it would be quite possible to structure a sale where there was no assignment of the deposit and the assignee gave a fresh deposit to the property developer. Accordingly, there were two supplies: of a financial instrument and of real property. Alternatively, "a deposit can be characterized as a pool of money retained until such time as it is applied in partial payment or forfeited" (para. 32), and a supply of money is not a supply of property or a service under the ETA. Either way, the consideration paid for the deposit recoveries was not taxable.