Global Cash Access, which arranged for cash advances from credit card issuers to the patrons of casinos, paid a fee to the casino, which provided space for Global's terminals (which were used to approve the transactions) as well as preparing a sort of cheque that the patron cashed in at the casino cashier. Although from CRA's perspective, what the casino was mostly getting paid for was its clerical services and the provision of the space, Sharlow JA found that the "commercial efficacy" of the whole arrangement turned on the provision of the cash by the casino, so that the fee was consideration for a single supply of a financial service under para. (g) or (i) of the definition thereof.
This same approach (that what was really being paid for was the "cheque" cashing function, even though that part of it was easy) also dictated a conclusion that the clerical/space provision aspects were not the "predominant" element of what was being supplied, so that the exclusions in paras. (r.4) and (r.5) of the financial services definition did not apply.