Rojas v. The Queen (July 27, 2016 – 2016 TCC 177, D’Arcy J.).
Précis: The taxpayer was a real estate agent and a licensed mortgage broker. CRA assessed the fees paid to her in the latter capacity as subject to GST. She appealed to the Tax Court on the basis that her services as a mortgage broker were a GST exempt supply of financial services. The Tax Court agreed and allowed the appeal with costs fixed in the amount of $350.
Decision: The Court had no difficulty in concluding that Ms. Rojas was providing a financial service:
 Paragraph (l) of the definition reads as follows:
“financial service” means
. . .
(1) the agreeing to provide, or the arranging for, a service that is
(i) referred to in any of paragraphs (a) to (i), and
(ii) not referred to in any of paragraphs (n) to (t).
 The Appellant argues that the services she rendered in respect of mortgages constituted the arranging for the lending of money. The lending of money is referred to in paragraph (g) of the definition of financial service.
 On the evidence before me, I agree with the Appellant. I have concluded that, as a question of fact, the Appellant made a single supply that was arranging for the lending of money. My conclusion is based upon the following facts.
- The Appellant was a licensed mortgage broker.
- She identified the potential borrower and determined whether the borrower qualified for a mortgage.
- She identified lenders who were willing to provide a mortgage loan to the borrower and the various terms under which the mortgage loan would be provided.
- Once the borrower chose a lender and a specific mortgage, the Appellant took steps to obtain a lending commitment from the lender.
- She then completed the lending process by obtaining the applicable forms from the borrower and providing them to the lender.
 In short, she facilitated the entire lending process by identifying both the borrower and lender and then bringing the parties together to complete the agreement to lend and borrow money. It is difficult to think of a clearer situation in which a person (the Appellant) is arranging for the lending of money.
As a result the Court allowed the appeal with costs fixed in the amount of $350.