Jerome
A.C.J.:-This
is
an
appeal
from
a
judgment
of
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada
dated
April
3,
1992.
The
issue
is
whether
the
plaintiff
validly
elected,
pursuant
to
subsection
15(5)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act,
R.S.C.
1952,
c.
148
(am.
S.C.
1970-71-72,
c.
63)
(the
’’Act”)
to
reduce
the
amount
of
automobile
standby
charges
which
would
otherwise
be
included
in
computing
his
income
for
those
years.
During
the
1984
and
1985
taxation
years,
the
plaintiff
was
the
sole
shareholder
and
the
president
of
John
Meeuse
Limited,
a
corporation
carrying
on
a
farming
business
in
the
province
of
Ontario.
During
the
years
in
question,
the
company
made
three
cars
available
to
Mr.
Mceuse
for
his
own
personal
use.
In
accordance
with
the
relevant
provisions
of
the
Income
Tax
Act,
as
they
read
at
the
material
time,
an
amount
was
required
to
be
included
in
computing
a
shareholder’s
income
for
a
taxation
year,
where
his
corporation
made
an
automobile
available
to
him
for
personal
use.
Subsection
6(2)
of
the
Act
provided
the
formula
for
computing
that
amount,
which
was,
in
turn,
based
on
the
presumption
the
shareholder
used
the
automobile
an
average
of
1,000
kilometres
per
month
for
personal
purposes.
This
statutory
presumption
could
be
rebutted
if
the
shareholder
established,
in
prescribed
form,
that
his
personal
use
of
the
automobile
in
the
year
averaged
less
than
1,000
kilometres
per
month.
In
particular,
paragraph
6(2)(d)
of
the
Act
provided
that
"for
the
purposes
of
this
subsection,
it
shall
be
assumed,
unless
the
taxpayer
establishes
otherwise
in
prescribed
form,
that
the
aggregate
number
of
kilometres
referred
to
in
subparagraph
(c)(i)
is
not
less
than
the
product
obtained
under
subparagraph
(c)(ii)."
During
the
1984
and
1985
taxation
years,
form
TD-5
was
the
form
prescribed
by
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
pursuant
to
subsection
6(2)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act.
The
instructions
in
the
form
stated
that
unless
it
was
filed,
the
maximum
standby
charge
must
be
calculated.
It
also
provided
if
the
operative
portion
of
the
form
was
not
completed
and
returned
to
the
employer
by
January
31
of
the
immediately
following
year,
the
maximum
standby
charge
would
be
calculated
by
the
employer.
Employers
were
instructed
to
retain
all
TD-5
declarations
so
filed
for
inspection
by
officers
of
Revenue
Canada,
Taxation.
The
plaintiff
did
not
file
a
TD-5
form
for
either
the
1984
or
1985
taxation
years
by
January
31
of
the
following
year.
He
did
not
file
the
forms
at
all
until
July
30,
1991,
the
date
on
which
his
appeals
were
to
be
heard
in
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada,
and
more
than
five
and
six
years,
respectively
after
the
dates
by
which
each
of
them
were
to
be
filed
in
accordance
with
instructions
prescribed
therein.
As
a
result,
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
reassessed
income
tax
to
the
plaintiff
for
his
1984
and
1985
taxation
years,
wherein
he
included
in
the
plaintiffs
income,
automobile
benefits
on
three
cars,
pursuant
to
subsection
15(5)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act.
The
plaintiff
objected
to
the
reassessments
by
notices
of
objection
dated
December
2,
1987,
and
the
Minister
confirmed
the
reassessments
by
notice
dated
November
8,
1988.
The
plaintiff
filed
an
appeal
to
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada
([1992]
1
C.T.C.
2470,
92
D.T.C.
1549)
on
the
grounds
paragraph
6(2)(d)
of
the
Act
was
ambiguous
with
respect
to
any
requirement
for
timely
filing
of
a
form
TD-5
and
such
ambiguity
should
be
resolved
in
favour
of
the
taxpayer.
Kempo
J.T.C.C.
rejected
that
argument
stating
at
pages
2476
(D.T.C.
1553-54):
I
find
no
ambiguity
within
paragraph
6(2)(d)
under
review.
It
provides
in
clear
and
unambiguous
language
that
an
assumptive
position
is
to
be
taken
unless
the
taxpayer
establishes
otherwise
in
prescribed
form.
The
language
is
expressed
in
mandatory
terminology....
To
follow
through
with
the
appellant’s
position
would,
however,
invite
a
finding
either
that
a
filing
of
the
form
would
be
redundant
and
therefore
unnecessary
or
alternatively
that,
given
its
omission
in
the
statute,
the
filing
time
requirement
could
be
interpreted
as
meaning
at
anytime
before
the
trial.
The
plaintiff
now
appeals
from
that
decision
on
the
basis
the
Act
does
not
require
the
TD-5
forms
to
be
filed
at
any
particular
time,
and
in
any
event,
they
have
been
filed,
as
required,
with
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada,
on
July
30,
1991.
The
plaintiffs
appeal
must
be
dismissed.
The
language
of
paragraph
6(2)(d)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act,
as
it
read
at
the
time,
is
clear.
Unless
a
taxpayer
elected
to
rebut
the
statutory
presumption
in
prescribed
form,
he
was
obliged
to
include
in
computing
his
income
for
the
year,
the
full
standby
charge.
The
jurisprudence
has
established
the
word
’’shall”
is
to
be
construed
as
mandatory.
In
Re
Manitoba
Language
Rights,
[1985]
1
S.C.R.
721,
19
D.L.R.
(4th)
1,
the
Supreme
Court
of
Canada
stated
at
page
737
(D.L.R.
13-14):
As
used
in
its
normal
grammatical
sense,
the
word
"shall"
is
presumptively
imperative.
See
Odgers’
Construction
of
Deeds
and
Statutes
(5th
ed.
1967)
at
page
377;
The
Interpretation
Act,
1867
(Can.),
31
Vict.,
c.
1,
s.
6(3);
Interpretation
Act,
R.S.C.
1970,
c.
I-23,
s.
28
("shall
is
to
be
construed
as
imperative").
It
is
therefore
incumbent
upon
this
Court
to
conclude
that
Parliament,
when
it
used
the
word
"shall"
in
section
23
of
the
Manitoba
Act,
1870
and
s.
133
of
the
Constitution
Act,
1867,
intended
that
those
sections
be
construed
as
mandatory
or
imperative,
in
the
sense
that
they
must
be
obeyed,
unless
such
an
interpretation
of
the
word
"shall"
would
be
utterly
inconsistent
with
the
context
in
which
it
has
been
used
and
would
render
the
section
irrational
or
meaningless.
The
present
case
is
not
one
where
a
taxpayer
has,
in
a
timely
manner,
filed
a
prescribed
form
which
contains
some
defect
or
error.
Here,
the
facts
are
indisputable
Mr.
Meeuse
simply
did
not
file
the
TD-5
form
within
the
required
time
period.
His
position,
that
he
is
nevertheless
entitled
to
a
reduction
in
the
amount
of
automobile
standby
charges,
is
untenable.
As
stated
in
Re
Public
Finance
Corp.
and
Edwards
Garage
Ltd.
(1957),
22
W.W.R.
312
(Alta.
S.C.)
at
page
317:
[W]hen
powers,
rights
or
privileges
are
granted
with
a
direction
that
certain
regulations
or
formalities
shall
be
complied
with,
it
seems
neither
unjust
nor
inconvenient
to
exact
a
rigorous
observance
of
them
as
essential
to
the
acquisition
of
the
right
or
privilege
or
authority
conferred,
and
it
is
therefore
probable
that
such
was
the
intention
of
the
legislature....
It
is
neither
inequitable,
unreasonable,
nor
in
any
way
inconsistent
with
the
Income
Tax
Act
to
require
a
taxpayer
to
strictly
adhere
to
the
procedure
prescribed
for
rebutting
the
statutory
presumption
contained
in
subsection
6(2).
Failure
to
do
so
entitles
the
Minister
to
include
the
entire
amount
of
standby
charges
in
computing
the
taxpayer’s
income.
The
learned
Tax
Court
Judge
committed
no
error
in
fact
or
in
law
in
so
finding.
For
these
reasons
the
plaintiffs
appeal
is
dismissed.
No
order
as
to
costs.
Appeal
dismissed.