The respondent was liable under s. 224(4) for its failure to respond to s. 224(1) demands (made both before and after the maturity of the GIC in which the trust was invested) in respect of proceeds of an RRSP where the annuitant had instructed the respondent on maturity of the GIC held in the plan to pay the proceeds directly to him immediately after the expiry of the time covered by the last of such demands. In finding that s. 224(1) was not restricted to debtor/creditor relationships, Isaac C.J., for the majority, stated (at para. 46) that "the ordinary meaning of the word 'liable' in a legal context is to denote the fact that a person is responsible at law" and further stated (at paras. 57, 63):
The tax debtor had a contractual right, enforceable in law, to have the net proceeds paid to him. The respondent had a corresponding contractual obligation to make the payment requested. In my respectful view, this legal obligation was sufficient to bring the respondent within the scope of the phrase “a person liable to make a payment” to the tax debtor within the meaning of subsection 224(1). ...
[T[he proceeds of the RRSP were payable to the tax debtor at the time he requested payment following the maturity of the GIC.
In his concurring reasons, McDonald JA stated (at para. 4):
The only reason the respondent falls within the confines of subsection 224(1) is because the tax debtor instructed the trustee to pay the proceeds of his RRSP directly to him and because this instruction occurred within 90 days of the respondent receiving Revenue Canada’s demand letter. The respondent, therefore, became a person liable to make a payment to the tax debtor. If the terms of the trust forbid the tax debtor from cashing out the trust, the respondent would not fall within the confines of subsection 224(1). Similarly, if there had been no request for payment made by the tax debtor the respondent would not be required to make a payment as subsection 224(1) would not apply.