substantially all

The taxpayer, who was the principal of a family company that was engaged in the supply and installation of commercial floor coverings, used a company-supplied vehicle to service clients (often after hours) within a 100-kilometre radius of his business premises and drove the vehicle approximately 40,000 kilometres per taxation year of which 7,500 kilometres were for non-employment purpose uses. Sheridan J. found that the taxpayer had satisfied the "substantially all" test in paragraph (d) of A in s. 6(2).

47.3% of a multi-purpose building which was constructed for a computer graphics corporation was used exclusively by it for scientific research. The corporation was unsuccessful in deducting 47.3% of the construction costs that related to common and administrative areas that were not used solely for scientific research purposes and in the deduction of 47.3% of expenses of a current nature that related to the common areas. McGillis J. stated (p. 6494):

Farley J. found that the sale pursuant to a share exchange offer for the direct and indirect shareholding of a closed-end investment company ("TCGIT") in another closed-end investment company ("CGI") that represented approximately 2/3 of the market value of the assets of TCGIT would constitute a sale of substantially all the assets of TCGIT given that the sale would radically and fundamentally alter TCGIT because the underlying assets of CGI would be managed by the acquirer under a significantly different fee arrangement, and TCGIT would lose the benefit of effective control over CGI.

The taxpayer, which was a Canadian manufacturer and distributer of toys in Canada, paid fixed commissions expressed as a percentage of the purchase price of products acquired by it from the Far East, to an affiliated company resident in Hong Kong. Before going on to consider ss.212(1)(d)(ii) and (iii), Dussault TCJ. noted (at p. 2136) that "a royalty or similar payment is ...

The taxpayer, who received approximately 80% of his income in the form of Public Service Management Insurance Plan disability payments, was found to receive "all or substantially all" of his income in such form for purposes of s. 118.94.

The registrant was a hotel company that paid franchise fees to a hotel franchise ("Marriott") in the United States. Marriott's fees were based on gross room revenues. Lamarre J. found that, because 30% of the registrant's revenue was from exempt stays (i.e. exceeding one month), 30% of the franchise fees were not incurred in respect of a "commercial activity" as defined in s. 123(1). Accordingly, she affirmed the Minister's assessment, which was made on the basis that the provision by Marriott of franchise rights was an "imported taxable supply" under s.