The appellant paving company constructed an asphalt plant and claimed an accelerated capital cost allowance and investment tax credit, arguing the plant was used primarily for 'manufacturing or processing goods for sale'.
The Minister denied the claims because 75% of the asphalt was used in the appellant's own paving contracts (contracts for work and materials), not sold to third parties.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the term 'sale' in the Income Tax Act imports settled commercial law distinctions, meaning goods supplied through contracts for work and materials do not qualify as goods for sale.
