This case involved a request for rebate by BC retirement facilities for GST paid to the contractors that supply the staff that did the actual attendant care. The Court agreed with the nursing homes that the homemaker services they had from contractors were exempt supplies under ETA Sch V, Part II, former s. 13.
Based on the reading of Paris J., the 2013 amendments to the exemption for “home care services” (formerly “homemaker services”) were seemingly unnecessary. (Paras. 40-54)
Reaching a different conclusion from Archambault in Hôpital Santa Cabrini c. La Reine, 2015 CCI 264, Paris said that the contractors were not just supplying staff but performing the actual homemaker services. (Paras. 55 to 56)
He also rejected the Crown’s argument that the services were not provided in the residents’ “place of residence”, ruling that the common areas and facilities were part of the residents’ “place of residence”. (Paras. 57 to 59)
Also, he gave a broad reading to supara. 13(b)(ii): “[66] It is only necessary, then, to show some connection between the B.C. Continuing Care program and the provision of the homemaker services by SimpeQ and HARPS [the contractors].”
The effect of this decision for the nursing homes is that they reduce the cost of their home care services by the amount of the GST on the contractor services. But the contractors will now have restrictions on their access to input tax credits. Still, because the major input for these services is employee labour, the overall GST cost for contractors and nursing homes should fall.
Cartier House Care Centre Ltd. v. The Queen 2015 TCC 278 (Paris)