The appellants were subcontractors of an affiliated company (“Exelon”) which, in turn, had a contract for the performance of construction work with a third party (“Enbridge”). Angers J found that for purposes s. 168(6) the consideration receivable bhy the appellans for their work did not become ascertainable for so long as a significant contractual dispute with Enbridge was resolved, stating (at para. 51) that:
[A]lthough invoices may have been tendered to Exelon, the exact value of the consideration had not been determined prior to this second [settlement] agreement. The value of the consideration was in dispute from the time the requests for payment were made and the invoices were issued. It was therefore impossible to establish the tax owing until the exact amount of the consideration was ascertained, which is what the settlement agreement did.