Federal Court of Appeal Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content





Date : 20000622


Docket : A-596-97

(T-2382-90)

CORAM :      DÉCARY J.A.

         ISAAC J.A.

         SHARLOW J.A.


BETWEEN :


     HUSSMAN STORE EQUIPMENT LIMITED

     a body politic, and corporate, duly

     incorporated according to law and having

     its head office at

     P.O. Box 550, Brantford, Ontario

     Appellant

     - and -

     MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE

     Respondent




     Heard at Ottawa (Ontario) on Thursday, June 22, 2000.

     Judgment delivered from the Bench on Thursday, June 22, 2000.






REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF

THE COURT DELIVERED BY:      DÉCARY J.A.







Date : 20000622


Docket : A-596-97

(T-2382-90)

CORAM :      DÉCARY J.A.

         ISAAC J.A.

         SHARLOW J.A.


BETWEEN :


     HUSSMAN STORE EQUIPMENT LIMITED

     a body politic, and corporate, duly

     incorporated according to law and having

     its head office at

     P.O. Box 550, Brantford, Ontario

     Appellant

     - and -

     MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE

     Respondent




     REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

     (Delivered from the Bench at Ottawa (Ontario)

     on Thursday, June 22, 2000)


DÉCARY J.A.

[1]      The central issue in this appeal from a decision of Rothstein J. reported at (1997), 133 F.T.R. 293, is whether the supermarket shelving provided by the appellant constitutes "structural metal and fabricated metal for buildings and other structures" within the meaning of Schedule V, Part I, item 21 of the Excise Tax Act as it read in 1986. Part I of Schedule V deals with "Construction materials".

[2]      The Canadian International Trade Tribunal found that the shelving at issue did not qualify and its decision was upheld by Rothstein J. on an appeal filed pursuant to section 81.28 of the Excise Tax Act.

[3]      Madam Justice Sharlow and I are persuaded that the decision of the learned Trial Judge is correct and we fully endorse his reasons for decision.

[4]      Mr. Justice Isaac disagrees and would allow the appeal with costs on the basis that the learned Trial Judge, having answered in the affirmative, on the authority of Chateau Manufacturing Ltd v. D/MNR for Customs & Excise, [1984] C.T.C. 43 (F.C.A.), the first question he posed, should have allowed the appeal and not gone on to consider the second question.

[5]      The appeal will be dismissed with costs.




     "Robert Décary"

     J.A.



 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.