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. 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 made by the casino (which she later found to be a financial service), Sharlow JA stated (at paras. 25-26):
[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. ... Based on an interpretation of the contracts between the Casinos and Global, what did the Casinos provide to Global to earn the commissions payable by Global?