The appellant ("Global") enabled casino patrons to use their credit cards to purchase cheques from Global which they could negotiate for cash. To this end, the patron first used his or her credit card at a kiosk on the casino premises (or at a cashier cage) to get the cheque-purchase transaction approved by the credit card issuer. The casino cashier then issued, on Global's behalf, a cheque made out by Global to the casino operator, which the casino operator then negotiated for cash provided to the patron. At issue was the taxability of fees paid by Global to the casino operator.
Woods J found that the activities of the casino operator in allowing kiosks on its premises and providing support services at the cashier cages, were excluded from the definition of (exempt) "financial services" in s. 123(1) under paras. (r.4) and (r.5) of that definition, whereas the casino operator's role of cashing the cheques was a financial service described in paras. (a) and (d) of the definition.
She then found that the above elements (kiosk provision, cashier services and cheque cashing) were "not so interdependent that they should be considered a single supply," it being "convenient, but not necessary, that the Casinos provide all of these elements" (para. 94), and "none of these elements are a minor part of the supply so as to be incidental" for purposes of s. 138 (para. 96). It was appropriate to allocate 25% of the fees paid to the casino operator as consideration for the exempt cheque-cashing service, and to treat the balance as taxable.