Noël JA, before rejecting the taxpayer's submission that the post-1993 version of s. 20(1)(p)(ii) contemplated a taxpayer whose ordinary business included the lending of money, and not the business of the lending of money, noted a concession of taxpayer's counsel that the taxpayer's sole business was that of warehousing and that it was not in the business of lending money, and then stated (in f.n. 2):
[T]his apparent concession is surprising as the business of lending money under the Act extends not only to one who lends money to all who qualify in the conventional sense (see Litchfield v. Dreyfus [1906] 1 KB 584 at 589) but would also include one who lends money on a regular and continuous basis over time to a limited group of borrowers for an arm's length consideration (see in particular the extended meaning of the word "business" in par. 248(1)).