http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/71350/index.do 
2253787 Ontario Inc. et al v. The Queen (April 28, 2014 – 2014 TCC 121) was a case involving the purchase of Apple phones in Canada through individual purchasers (who received a fee). The taxpayer corporations then took the phones and sent them to Hong Kong where they could be sold at a profit. The taxpayers claimed ITCs on the Canadian purchases. The sole issue, apart from the adequacy of some of their documentation and a small pre-registration issue, was whether the individual purchasers were “agents” of the taxpayers such that the taxpayers could be seen to have paid the GST on the purchase of the phones. The court held that the taxpayers had failed to establish an agency relationship:
[17] The third party seller, Apple, has expressly prohibited its primary sale for subsequent re-sale and/or export. Had the alleged agency been disclosed at the outset, Apple would have refused to make the sale. If and when the agency became apparent, Apple would have invalidated the sale, warranty and its obligations under these voidable provisions. For agency to exist, it is mandatory that the agent have the ability to affect the principal’s legal position by entering into contracts on the principal’s behalf; a principal cannot appoint an agent to engage in a contractual entreaty into which the principal has no legal capacity or authority to enter:
1524994 Ontario Ltd. v. Canada, 2007 FCA 74 at paragraph 18.
[18] Ironically, only by using the initial buyers as pawns could the Appellants actually accomplish their main business purpose: the circumvention of Apple’s prohibited sale to resellers and exporters.
[19] The main goal was achieved. The coincident goal is not. The relationship of agency, utilized but concealed to dupe the initial seller to contract with the initial buyer, cannot now be revealed
post facto in order to inject the notion of a different “principal” buyer and obviate the need for the initial buyer to register for HST and properly claim the ITCs. Agency requires a consistent, clear and documented factual basis for those who view and rely upon it; a story with alternative endings serving different purposes at varying times does not meet that demand. The non-disclosure to one third party (Apple) of one of reality for a main purpose cannot be set aside, when suitable, and re-characterized to another reality for a different third party (the Minister):
1524994 Ontario, supra at paragraph 20.
[20] On this basis, the Court finds that no agency existed given the required necessity of concealment to the initial seller, with whom, without such a concealment, a legal relationship could not have been created or maintained affecting the rights and obligations of the purported principal. Without that legal foundation block, subsection 177(1) of the ETA has not been satisfied since based upon the actions of the Appellants no agency could be maintained at law.
Although this conclusion was sufficient to dispose of the appeals, the court also concluded that much of the documentation was insufficient and that one of the taxpayer’s was not entitled to pre-registration ITCs as a small supplier.