Citation: 2011 TCC 462
Date: 29092011
Docket: 2009-2465(GST)G
BETWEEN:
JEMA INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL CLINIC INC.,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
D'Arcy J.
[1]
Jema International
Travel Clinic Inc. (“Jema”) has appealed from an assessment by the Minister in
respect of Jema’s Goods and Services Tax (“HST”) reporting periods ending
between January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2007 (the “Assessed
Period”).
[2]
This case raises the
following issues: what is the nature of certain supplies made by Jema during
the reporting periods and are these supplies taxable supplies, exempt supplies
or zero-rated supplies under Part IX of the Excise Tax Act (the “HST
Legislation”)?
[3]
Two witnesses testified
at the hearing, Dr. Austin Richard Copper, a senior Newfoundland physician and
Ms. Margot Mayo. Both had been called to testify by the Appellant.
[4]
Ms. Margot Mayo is the
owner and nurse operator of Jema.
[5]
Ms. Mayo is a
registered nurse and nurse practitioner. Subsequent to becoming a registered
nurse, Ms. Mayo obtained a dual diploma in community and primary health care
from Memorial University, a certificate in breast screening examination and a
certificate in travel health.
I found her to be a credible witness.
[6]
Dr. Cooper is one of
the responsible physicians for Jema. He makes himself available 24 hours
a day for consultations.
[7]
Dr. Cooper is a
practising paediatrician with training in infectious diseases and microbiology.
He is also a professor of paediatrics at Memorial University’s medical school
and has taught a course on infectious diseases at the medical school for over
38 years. It was clear from his testimony that Dr. Cooper is dedicated to his
profession. He was a very credible witness.
Summary of Facts
[8]
Jema is the sole
certified travel and health clinic in Newfoundland and Labrador. Jema’s clinic
provides advice to persons traveling outside of Canada with respect to
vaccinations that should be obtained before traveling to certain countries. The
clinic also provides these vaccines.
[9]
Ms. Mayo created Jema
to fill a perceived need for a travel clinic in Newfoundland. She testified
that, as a result of the phase out of travel health services at a local
community health clinic, a number of individuals in St John’s could not obtain the advice and vaccinations they required in order to
travel to certain countries. She was aware of a number of individuals who were
travelling to Nova Scotia and Ontario to obtain the advice and vaccinations.
[10]
She opened Jema after
receiving an authorization from the Association of Registered Nurses of
Newfoundland. The authorization letter (Exhibit A-2) noted the following:
Your scope of practice is in keeping with approved nursing practice
and the medications you will administer are in keeping with approved standards
and travel advisories. The committee also recognized that you will be working
in consultation with a physician.
As long as you practice in accordance with your proposal and follow
travel advisories and standards regarding administration of vaccines &
related medications then your hours of work can be recognized as nursing
practice for licensure. You must hold a practicing license while working within
this role and renew that license in accordance with ARNNL legislation.
[11]
The clinic was also
required to follow guidelines from numerous health committees, including the
Committee to Advise on Tropical Medicine and Travel, the National Advisory
Committee on Immunizations and the Canadian Immunization Guide.
[12]
Ms. Mayo testified that
she employs three other nurses at Jema, a full-time nurse, a part-time nurse
and a nurse who works on a casual basis. One of these nurses has a certificate
in travel health from the International Society of Travel Medicine, a second is
studying for the certificate and the nurse who is employed on a casual basis is
a public health nurse.
[13]
In addition, a number
of physicians provide consulting services to Jema, including Dr. Cooper, a
doctor who serves as the medical officer of health for the Eastern Region of
Newfoundland and a doctor who serves as the medical officer of health for the Central
Region of Newfoundland. None of the consulting doctors charge for their
services.
[14]
Ms. Mayo described the
daily operation of the travel health clinic as follows:
-
The nurses begin their
day by conducting research with respect to the countries their clients may
visit. This includes reviewing any new travel advisories, noting any political
developments in the countries, determining if any natural disasters have
occurred in the last 24 hours, and determining whether there have been any
recent outbreaks of diseases such as Ebola, dengue or tuberculosis in a
specific country.
-
When a client arrives,
the nurse assigned to him or her begins by obtaining a detailed health history;
the process includes a discussion of the client’s allergy status, of the medications
he or she is taking, and of any diseases currently suffered by the client.
-
The nurse then
discusses with the client the type of travel he/she intends to make, focusing
on such things as the length of his/her trip, where he/she will be sleeping and
eating, the parts of the country he/she intends to visit, and whether he/she
will be visiting a rural area or a remote area such as a jungle.
-
When obtaining the
above information, the nurse ensures that she/he has complied with the Health
Canada guidelines for a health and risk assessment.
-
Once the nurse has
obtained all of the relevant information, a decision is made with respect to
which vaccines should be recommended to the client and which vaccines are
required. Ms. Mayo explained that there are three types of vaccines:
recommended, required (such as yellow fever) and routine (such as baby
needles).
-
The chosen vaccines are
then provided to the client at Jema’s clinic.
[15]
Jema issues an invoice
to its clients, which shows two charges, one for the discussion of the client’s
health history, his/her travel plans and other relevant information (the
“consultation”) and the other for any vaccines administered by the nurse.
However, Ms. Mayo noted that in certain instances the vaccines are provided
free of charge. This occurs when the government provides the vaccine to the
Appellant for no consideration. Examples would be vaccines for tetanus,
measles, mumps or rubella.
[16]
Ms. Mayo noted, on
cross-examinations, that clients could obtain consultations without obtaining a
vaccination, however a vaccination could not be provided without a health and
risk assessment based on Health Canada guidelines.
[17]
Jema was not registered
under the HST Legislation during the Assessed Period, did not collect
GST/HST from its clients and did not file GST/HST tax returns.
Issue 1: Nature of Supplies
[18]
The Appellant’s primary
submission with respect to the nature of the supplies it made is that Jema’s
dealings with its clients constituted a single zero-rated supply of a vaccine.
In the alternative, it submitted that Jema made two supplies, a zero-rated
supply of a vaccine and a separate, exempt, supply of the consultation.
[19]
The Respondent submits
that Jema made two separate supplies; a taxable supply of the administration of
a vaccination and a taxable supply of providing travel and immunization
consultations.
The Law
[20]
The HST is levied under
four separate and distinct divisions of Part IX of the HST Legislation:
Division II, Division III, Division IV, and Division IV.1.
[21]
This appeal is only
concerned with the tax levied under Division II.
[22]
The Division II tax is
imposed on every recipient of a taxable supply that is made in Canada. Between January
1, 2003 and June 30, 2006, the tax was levied on the value of the consideration
for the supply at three rates: the 7% GST rate for supplies that were not made
in a province that had harmonized its sales tax with the GST, the 15% HST rate
for supplies that were made in a province that had harmonized its sales tax
with the GST, and the 0% rate for taxable supplies that are included in
Schedule VI of the HST Legislation. On July 1, 2006 the tax rates were
decreased by 1% to 6% for supplies that were not made in a province with a
harmonized sales tax and 14% for supplies that were made in a province with a
harmonized sales tax.
[23]
During the Assessed
Period, Newfoundland had harmonized its sales tax with the GST.
[24]
A taxable supply is
defined as a supply made in the course of a commercial activity.
[25]
A supply is defined as
the provision of property or services in any manner including sale, transfer,
barter, exchange, license, rental, lease, gift or disposition. The words “property”
and “services” are also defined in the HST Legislation. “Property” is
defined to mean any property, whether real or personal, movable or immovable,
tangible or intangible, corporeal or incorporeal, and a right or interest of
any kind whatever but not including money. A “service” is defined even more
broadly to mean anything other than property, money and certain services supplied
to an employer by an employee, an officer and certain other persons. The
definition of “service” is extremely broad. If something is not property, money
or an “employee service”, then it will be deemed to be a “service”.
[26]
As a result of the
broad definitions of “supply”, “property” and “services”, the provision of
anything in the course of a commercial transaction will potentially be subject
to tax.
[27]
In view of these broad
definitions, the issue frequently arises as to whether a supplier such as Jema
has made a single supply comprised of a number of constituent elements or
multiple supplies of separate goods and/or services.
[28]
The determination of
this issue involves two steps. First, it must be determined whether a single
supply or multiple supplies were made by the supplier; that is a question of
fact. If it is determined that multiple supplies were made then the deeming
provisions in section 138 and 139 of the HST Legislation must be
considered.
[29]
The factual question of
whether a supplier has made a single supply or multiple supplies has been
considered by the Court and the Federal Court of Appeal on numerous occasions.
Most of these decisions follow the principles summarized by Justice Rip (as he
then was) in O.A. Brown Ltd. v. Canada, [1995] G.S.T.C. 40 (O.A.
Brown).
[30]
Justice Rip provided
the following framework for making the factual determination,
In deciding this issue, it is first necessary to decide what has
been supplied as consideration for the payment made. It is then necessary to
consider whether the overall supply comprises one or more than one supply. The
test to be distilled from the English authorities is whether, in substance and
reality, the alleged separate supply is an integral part, integrant or
component of the overall supply. One must examine the true nature of the
transaction to determine the tax consequences. . . .
[31]
When reaching his
decision Justice Rip made the following observations:
One factor to be considered is whether or not the alleged separate
supply can be realistically omitted from the overall supply. This is not
conclusive but is a factor that assists in determining the substance of the
transaction.
. . .
The fact that a separate charge is made for one constituent part of
a compound supply does not alter the tax consequences of that element. Whether
the tax is charged or not charged is governed by the nature of the supply. . . .
In each case it is useful to consider whether it would be possible
to purchase each of the various elements separately and still end up with a
useful article or service. For if it is not possible then it is a necessary
conclusion that the supply is a compound supply which cannot be split up for
tax purposes.
[32]
Justice Rip noted the
importance of common sense when the determination is made. As my colleague
Justice McArthur noted in Gin Max Enterprises Inc. v. the Queen at
paragraph 18,
From a review of the case law, the question of whether two elements
constitute a single supply or two or multiple supplies requires an analysis of
the true nature of the transactions and it is a question of fact determined with
a generous application of common sense. . . .
(emphasis added)
Application of Law to Facts
[33]
After reviewing the
evidence, I have concluded that the Appellant made two supplies, i.e. the
supply of the consultation and the supply of a vaccine.
[34]
The consultation
between the nurses and the clients involved a determination of what vaccines
the latter was required to have and what vaccines he or she could elect to have
before travelling to a specific country. The consultations also resulted in the
determination of whether the client, based upon his or her current health and
medications, could receive the vaccines. The consultations could result in the
client receiving no vaccines (if for example he/she has previously received all
required or recommended vaccines), a single vaccine or numerous vaccines.
Further, the actual number and type of vaccines administered by the nurses at
the clinic would vary from client to client.
[35]
This, in my view, evidences
that the supply of the consultations was separate from the supply of the
vaccines. For example, a person may attend at the clinic and the nurse may
determine that he or she does not require any vaccines. The supply of the
consultation has been made, but there is no supply of a vaccine. In other words,
a supply of the vaccine is not required to make a supply of the consultation.
This supports a finding that the supply of the consultation was separate from
the supply of any vaccines.
[36]
In addition, the supply
of the consultation is a useful service even if a supply of a vaccine is not
made. If the client elects not to receive a required vaccination then he/she
knows that he/she cannot travel to the country that requires the vaccine.
Alternatively, if the consultation results in a determination that the client
can travel safely to a specific country without having received any
vaccinations, then he/she has still received useful information.
[37]
Having made the factual
determination that Jema’s consultation and vaccination services constitute
separate supplies, I must next consider whether the deeming provisions in
section 138 and 139 of the HST Legislation apply to deem the separate
supplies to be a single supply. Section 138, which is generally referred to as
the incidental supply rule, does not apply since the two supplies were made for
separate considerations: that provision requires that the separate supplies be made
for a single consideration. Section 139, which is generally referred to as the
mixed supply rule, does not apply to the supplies at issue since neither of the
supplies constituted the supply of a financial service: that provision only
applies if one of the supplies at issue constitutes the supply of a financial
service.
[38]
It is my view, on the basis
of the evidence before me, that the supply of the vaccine and the
administration of the vaccine constituted a single supply. As Ms. Mayo
noted, the clinic could not sell the vaccine to the client without physically
administering the vaccine at the clinic. Under Canadian law, the vaccine must
be administered by a qualified health care professional (such as a physician or
a nurse).
[39]
The Respondent argued
that this single supply constituted a single supply of the administration
of a vaccine. I do not agree with this submission. Rather, I agree with the
Appellant that the single supply constituted a supply of a vaccine.
[40]
It is clear from the
evidence before me that it was the vaccine that was supplied for the
consideration (if any) provided by the clients. Ms. Mayo testified that clients
came to the clinic to receive a vaccine. This was the primary purpose of their
attending the clinic. The consultation that took place had a single purpose, to
determine the specific vaccines, if any, that the client required before he/she
could travel to a specific country. The administration of the vaccine was
merely a component of the overall supply of the vaccine.
[41]
The evidence before me
was that once it was determined which, if any, vaccines were to be provided to
the clients, then the consideration to be charged would be determined. This
consideration was dependent on the vaccines supplied to the clients. For
example, as Ms. Mayo noted in her testimony, if she was not charged
consideration when purchasing the vaccine, then the vaccine was administered to
the client free of charge. It was only when the Appellant purchased the vaccine
for consideration that it charged a consideration to the client for the
vaccine.
Issue 2: Taxation of Supplies
Taxation of supply of consultation services
[42]
I will first address
the taxation of the supply of the consultation services.
[43]
It is the Appellant’s
position that the supply of the consultations constituted an exempt supply
under paragraph 6(a) of Part II of Schedule V of the HST Legislation,
as that section read prior to February 27, 2008. It is the Respondent’s
position that the supply is a taxable supply and does not satisfy the
conditions of section 6 of Part II of Schedule V.
The Law
[44]
Part II of Schedule V,
entitled Health Care Services, deems a number of supplies made by health care
professionals and others to constitute exempt supplies. Certain sections of
Schedule V have general application, while other sections relate to supplies
made by specific health care professionals. Supplies made by a specific health
care professional may be exempted under more than one of the sections of
Schedule V. For example, physicians’ services may be exempted under sections 2,
5, 9 or 10. Services rendered by nurses may be exempted under sections 2, 6, 9
or 10.
[45]
Paragraph 6(a)
of Part II of Schedule V of the HST Legislation read as follows during
the Assessed Period:
A supply of a nursing service rendered by a registered nurse, a
registered nursing assistant, a licensed or registered practical nurse or a
registered psychiatric nurse, where
(a) the service is rendered to an individual in a health care
facility or in the individual's place of residence;
[46]
The only issue raised
by the Respondent with respect to the application of paragraph 6(a) of Part II
of Schedule V of the HST Legislation to the supply of the consultations
by the Appellant related to the definition of “health care facility”. It is the
position of the Respondent that the services rendered by the Appellant’s nurses
to the individual clients in the course of the consultations were not rendered
to the clients in a health care facility.
[47]
Health care facility
is defined in section 1 of
Part II of Schedule V of the HST Legislation as follows:
“health care facility” means
(a) a facility, or a part thereof, operated for the purpose
of providing medical or hospital care, including acute, rehabilitative or
chronic care,
(b) a hospital or institution primarily for individuals with
a mental health disability, or
(c) a facility, or a part thereof, operated for the purpose
of providing residents of the facility who have limited physical or mental
capacity for self-supervision and self-care with
(i) nursing and personal care under the direction or
supervision of qualified medical and nursing care staff or other personal and
supervisory care (other than domestic services of an ordinary household nature)
according to the individual requirements of the residents,
(ii) assistance with the activities of daily living and
social, recreational and other related services to meet the psycho-social needs
of the residents, and
(iii) meals and accommodation;
Application of Law to the Facts
[48]
Counsel for the
Respondent argued that the services provided by the Appellant’s nurses were not
provided in a “health care facility” since the Appellant’s clinic did not
constitute a facility operated for the purpose of providing medical care. Counsel
for the Respondent argued that medical care can only be found to exist in the
context of a doctor/client relationship and hence, the services provided by the
Appellant’s nurses did not constitute medical care.
[49]
For the following
reasons, I do not agree with the Respondent’s position.
[50]
The words “medical
care” are not defined by the HST Legislation. As the Supreme Court of
Canada has stated, statutory interpretation of fiscal legislation should be
done “. . . according to a textual, contextual and purposive analysis to find
a meaning that is harmonious with the Act as a whole. . . .”
[51]
The word “medical”, in the
ordinary sense, is defined by the Canadian Oxford Dictionary as follows:
medical
adjective 1 of or relating to the science or practice of medicine
in general. 2 of or relating to conditions requiring medical and not
surgical treatment (medical ward). 3 of or relating to the
condition of one’s health (medical leave).
[52]
Dorland’s Illustrated
Medical Dictionary
(“Dorland’s) defines “medical” as:
pertaining to medicine or the treatment of diseases; pertaining to
medicine as opposed to surgery.
[53]
Dorland’s defines
“medicine” as:
1. any drug or remedy. 2. the art and science of the diagnosis and
treatment of disease and the maintenance of health. 3. the treatment of
disease by nonsurgical means.
[54]
The Canadian Oxford English
Dictionary defines “care” as follows:
care noun
1a the process of looking after or providing for someone or something;
the provision of what is needed for health or protection (child care; health
care; skin care). . . .
[55]
In my view, the words “medical
care”, as used in the definition of health care facility in section 1 of Part
II of Schedule V of the HST Legislation, mean that a person is provided
with what is required to diagnose, treat and/or prevent disease, injuries or
other illnesses. This would include services relating to the treatment of
existing medical conditions and services relating to maintaining the person’s
current health (such as an annual physical).
[56]
The Respondent argued that medical
care can only be provided by physicians and cannot be provided by nurses.
[57]
The Quebec Nurses Act
defines the “nursing practice”
as:
The practice of nursing consists in assessing a person's state of
health, determining and carrying out of the nursing care and treatment plan,
providing nursing and medical care and treatment in order to maintain or
restore health and prevent illness, and providing palliative care.
[58]
This definition, in my
view, shows that a nurse does provide medical care to her/his patients.
[59]
The Newfoundland Registered
Nurses Act does not contain a definition of “nursing practice”. However,
examples of the type of services nurses are authorized to provide under the Act
are contained in the Nurse Practitioners Regulations to the Act.
[60]
Schedule A to the Nurse
Practitioners regulations contains a 5 page list of illnesses and injuries
where the nurse practitioner may provide diagnosis advice. The illnesses
and injuries are grouped under the following headings; eye, ear, nose, upper
respiratory tract, other, lower respiratory tract, cardiovascular, peripheral
vascular, endocrine, gastrointestinal, genitourinary, reproductive, integument,
infections and parasitic diseases, musculoskeletal, haematopoietic, nervous
system, psychological and other. The regulations specify, for each listed
illness or injury, whether the nurse is required to consult with her/his
consulting physician or whether the consultation is discretionary. The
consultation is discretionary for a significant number of the identified
illnesses and injuries.
[61]
Schedule B to the Nurse
Practitioner Regulations contains a list of 33 diagnostic tests that can be
ordered by the nurse practitioner independently “in providing care to clients”.
[62]
Schedule C to the Nurse
Practitioner Regulations contains a three and a half page list of drugs
that a nurse practitioner may be prescribed “independently or administered in
the course of practice by a nurse practitioner.”
[63]
Clearly, a nurse
practitioner, such as Ms. Mayo, is providing medical care when she is providing
the services authorized under the regulations. The nurse is diagnosing illness,
ordering diagnostic tests and prescribing drugs.
[64]
As Dr. Cooper noted
when answering a question on cross-examination:
. . . Someone comes in with a pain in the ear and the nurse
practitioner sees it, gets a history, finds out that the child has an ear
infection and gives them an antibiotic and I do the same thing. Now what’s the
difference? I’m governed under the Medical Act and she’s governed under
Nurse Practitioner agreement, usually with a hospital such as Eastern Health or
somewhere else, Western or whatever.
. . .
[65]
The Respondent argued
that her position that only physicians can provide medical care is recognized
under Part II of Schedule V of the HST Legislation. She argued that “by
virtue that there are separate exempting provisions for medical care and nursing
care, the Act implicitly distinguishes between these services.” I do not agree
with this argument. While section 5 of Part II of Schedule V only applies to
supplies made by physicians (and dentists) and section 6 of Part II of Schedule
V only applies to supplies made by nurses, supplies made by physician and
nurses services are also exempted under other provisions of Part II Schedule V.
In fact, sections 2, 9 and 10 of Part II of Schedule V may apply to services
rendered by either physicians or nurses.
[66]
The Respondent also
argued that its position was supported by the decision of the Court in Riverfront
Medical Evaluations Ltd. v. R. 2001 G.S.T.C. 80 (Riverfront). I am
not of the view that Riverfront is authority for the proposition that only
physicians can provide medical care. Riverfront involved a corporation
that contracted with doctors to provide independent medical evaluations to
insurance companies and lawyers. The analysis conducted by Justice Bell
centered on whether this was an exempt supply made by a physician. Justice Bell
did not directly consider the question of whether a nurse can provide medical
care.
[67]
In summary, while I
accept that medical care can only be provided by a qualified health care
professional, I do not accept counsel for the Respondent’s argument that
medical care can only be provided by physicians. It is clear from the evidence
before me, particularly the testimony of Dr. Cooper and Ms. Mayo and the
relevant provincial legislation, that nurses have the training and skills to provide
medical care to their clients, and, I find that they do.
[68]
The question that must
be answered is whether Jema’s clinic was operated for the purpose of
providing medical care. In other words, did the nurses who worked at Jema
provide medical care to their clients?
[69]
The authorization
letter Jema received from Association of Registered Nurses of Newfoundland
states that the activities carried out by the nurses are recognized as nursing
practice.
[70]
Dr. Cooper stated that
most of the work performed by the nurses was preventive medicine for people who
were intending to travel abroad. He noted that the nurses also administered
numerous vaccines to seniors.
[71]
He described the task
performed by the nurses as a process, focused on obtaining the client’s health
history. He stated the following:
When I started medical school, the first thing or relatively soon, I
learned how to talk to people and get a proper history and physical and it was
pounded into me as a student and I’m pounding it into our students that the most
important thing is to get a proper history on people, so you know the story and
is it safe to give medications and make a diagnosis, make an assessment of that
person, and that’s done today equally by nurses, by nurse practitioners and
physicians…
[72]
On cross-examination he
noted the following knowledge that a nurse would be required to have in order
to select and administer a vaccine (this was in addition to the ability to
obtain the client’s history).
-
General knowledge of
anatomy
-
Training of a registered
nurse.
-
Knowledge of the
various types of vaccines and how they are manufactured.
-
Knowledge of the
various contraindications (a condition or factor that serves as a reason to
withhold a certain vaccine).
-
The specific country
the person will travel to.
[73]
Dr. Cooper noted that
many nurses (including two at Jema’s clinic) were qualified as travel medical
experts, which required specific training and having passed a number of exams.
Dr. Cooper stated that these nurses would have knowledge that was “far superior
to the knowledge of an average physician” with respect to the selection and
administration of a vaccine.
[74]
I have already
summarized the daily activities of the clinic. They include obtaining a history
from the client (including whether he/she has any allergies and is taking any
medications), determining what vaccines (if any) are required or recommended to
protect him/her from becoming ill while travelling, and administering the
selected vaccines. I agree with Dr. Cooper’s description of these activities as
preventive medicine, diagnosing potential illnesses, determining the current
health of the client and providing drugs. In my view, these services constitute
“medical” care as they are provided by a trained medical professional and are
intended to maintain the client’s current health.
[75]
For the foregoing
reasons, the Jema facility did constitute a “health care facility”, since it
was a facility that was operated for the purpose of providing medical care.
Further, the consultations provided by Jema constituted exempt supplies under
paragraph 6(a) of Schedule V of the HST Legislation. The
consultations constituted the supply of nursing services rendered by a
registered nurse to an individual in a health care facility.
Taxation of supply of vaccine
[76]
Part I of Schedule VI
of the HST Legislation zero-rates the supply of certain prescription
drugs and biologicals. Section (2)(a) of Schedule VI zero-rates a drug
included in Schedule C or D to the Food and Drug Act.
[77]
During the assessment
period, Schedule D to the Food and Drug Act included a number of drugs
of biological origin including immunizing agents and allergenic substances used
for the treatment or diagnosis of allergic or immunological diseases.
[78]
The Appellant argued
that the vaccines administered by the Appellant were included in Schedule D to
the Food and Drug Act. The Respondent did not challenge the Appellant’s
position on this point. I agree with the Appellant.
[79]
In summary, the supply
of the vaccines by the Appellant constituted a zero‑rated supply.
[80]
For the foregoing
reasons the appeal is allowed and the assessment dated July 22, 2008 is referred back to the Minister of National Revenue
for reconsideration and reassessment on the basis that the Appellant made an exempt supply of the
consultation services and a zero-rated supply of the vaccine. The Appellant is
awarded its costs.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada,
this 29th day of September 2011.
“S. D’Arcy”
Email this Content