Each appellant, which was a for-profit operator of a B.C. residential care home (in the case of "CH") or a B.C. assisted living facility (in the case of "CT"), was invoiced periodically, based on an flat hourly rate, by a third-party independent contractor ("HARPS," or "SimpeQ," respectively) for the services of their "care aides" (who performed personal services and provided assistance to residents with the activities of daily living, including bathing, dressing, grooming, transferring, skin, nail and mouth care, meal preparation and feeding, washroom and medication assistance and incontinence management), in the case of CH, "activity aides" (who focused on social activities for the residents), as well as laundry and housekeeping services for both homes. The regional health authority ("FHA") funded "Health Services" including assistance with the activities of daily living including bathing, dressing, grooming, transferring, feeding, incontinence management, and emotional and social support, but not "Hospitality Services" including social and recreational programs, laundry and "homemaking" services.
After finding that the provision of the services of the care aides qualified as a "homemaker service," Paris J rejected a Crown submission that HARPS and SimpeQ were instead providing personnel services, stating (at para. 56) that "The contracts between SimpeQ and CT and between HARPS and CH clearly provide for the supply of services including care services, hospitality services and housekeeping services." Respecting the requirement in s. 13(1) that the "services be rendered to an individual in the individual's place of residence" and a Crown submission that "the place of residence of the residents was restricted to their individual suites" (para. 57), he stated (at para.58) that:
[B]oth Courtyard Terrace and Cartier House were used solely as places of residence for the residents. Therefore, it seems artificial to distinguish between the residents' units or rooms and the remainder of the premises when determining their place of residence.
In finding (at para. 66) "that FHA was administering a government program in respect of homemaker services," as required by the preamble to s. 13(1)(b)(ii), Paris J stated (at para. 66) that "it is only necessary, then, to show some connection between the B.C. Continuing Care program and the provision of the homemaker services by SimpeQ and HARPS."
And in finding that FHA paid amounts to CT and CH for the purpose of acquiring the homemaker services, he stated (at para. 70):
While the entire cost of the homemaker services that CT contracted SimpeQ to provide and that CH contracted HARPS to provide may not have been borne by FHA in each case, it did pay an amount to each of them for the purpose of acquiring the homemaker services and therefore the requirements of subparagraph 13(b)(ii) of Part II have been met.
See summary under Sched. V, Pt. II, s. 1 – home care service.