consideration

By services, 28 November, 2015

The registrant, when it paid volume rebates to customers, was found by McArthur J to be thereby reducing the consideration on the previous sales for purposes of s. 232(2) (stating at p. 85-5 that "volume rebates...[are] a mechanism which reduces the consideration paid by the customer to the manufacturer"). However, it was not obligated under s. 232(2) to rebate GST under s. 232(3) when the consideration was so reduced (as the word "may" only gave it the "option" of doing so), and it did not do so. Accordingly, for purposes of former s. 181.1, s.

By services, 28 November, 2015

The appellant ("Costco") entered into a conventional "Merchant Agreement" with the Amex Bank of Canada ("Amex") pursuant to which it agreed to pay the discount fees of Amex, and at the same time entered into a "Co-Branding Agreement" under which it agreed to accept only Amex credit cards and Amex agreed to make payments to it equal to Y% of the discount fees earned by it.

By services, 28 November, 2015

(Correctness questioned in City of Calgary at para. 65.)

Student busing services were found to have been provided by the Appellant school board to the Ministry of Transport rather than to the students given that it was clear that the service had to be provided by the board, failing which subsidies (which largely or completely covered the cost of the service) would not be paid to the board by the Ministry. Noël J.A. stated (at p. 11-13) that: