The appellant ("Global") enabled casino patrons to use their credit cards to purchase payment instruments similar to cheques (the "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, the 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 (which were half of the fees earned by it from the patrons - which ranged from $17 for cash in the amount of $71 to $140, to $179.25 for cash in the amount of $3,521 to $7,050.) The trial judge found that the Casinos made three supplies to Global: allowing the kiosks on the premises, providing support services at the cashier cages, and cashing Global's cheques; and that only the third supply was of a financial service.
In finding that there was a single supply of a financial service described in para. (g) of the definition, Sharlow JA stated (at paras. 25, 28, 30):
[T]here is no evidence that Global would have been prepared to pay consideration to the Casinos for any of the three elements on its own. Since the three elements are integrally connected and there is a single consideration, there is a single supply. ... On any reasonable view of the evidence, the commercial efficacy of the arrangement depends critically on access to the Casinos' cash. ... Unless the Casinos were willing and able to supply the cash, there would have been no point in Global setting up its equipment on the Casinos' premises or specifying the documentation required to complete the transactions. [T]he heart of each transaction is an advance of money... .
Sharlow JA went on to find that the supply also qualified as a financial service under para. (i): in order to be reimbursed by the credit card issuers, Global required the casinos to complete the cheques on its behalf, which related to amounts for which credit card vouchers were issued. The carve-outs from the definition of financial service in para. (r.4) (respecting the information-gathering and clerical aspects of the Casinos' services) and in para. (r.5) (respecting the Casinos' giving Global access to terminals and kiosks) did not apply given the finding above that the predominant element of the supply was the provision of cash.