The appellant, which was a for-profit operator of a B.C. residential care home, was invoiced periodically, based on an flat hourly rate, by a third-party independent contractor ("HARPS") for the services of its "care aides" (who performed personal services and provided assistance to residents with the activities of daily living), and "activity aides" (who focused on social activities for the residents and whose time represented 5.4% of the total).
After finding that the provision of the services of the care aides qualified as an exempt "homemaker service" under Sched. V, Pt. II, s. 13, Paris J found that s. 138 did not deem the activity aide services to form part of a single supply of care aide services. He stated (at paras. 75-6):
[T]he method of invoicing the activity aide and care aide supplies does not result in those services being provided for a single consideration. …[T]he total hours and fees for both types of aides were combined on the invoices because the hourly rate for all of those aides was the same. Therefore, the consideration for each category of worker would be determinable and separate amounts.
…[T]he activity aide services were not incidental to the care aide services. …[E]ach kind of service was independent of the other and had value as a separate supply.
See summaries under Sched. V, Pt. II, s. 13 and Sched. V, Pt. II, s. 1 – home care services.