Pratte,
J:—Counsel
for
the
appellant
attacked
the
judgment
of
the
Trial
Division
on
two
grounds.
First,
he
said
that
the
judge
had
ignored
the
text
of
the
“Agreed
Statement
of
Facts
and
Documents”
that
had
been
filed
by
the
parties.
This
assertion
is,
in
my
view,
without
foundation.
The
statement
filed
by
the
parties
summarized
certain
documents
to
which
it
referred
and
which
were
annexed
to
it.
All
that
the
judge
did
was
to
give
precedence
to
the
text
of
those
documents
over
the
summary
that
was
contained
in
the
statement.
In
doing
so,
the
learned
judge
did
not
commit
any
error.
The
appellant’s
second
contention
was
that
the
Trial
judge
had
wrongly
characterized
the
contracts
entered
into
by
the
CBC
and
the
appellant
as
leases
rather
than
sales.
This
contention
must
also,
in
my
view,
be
rejected.
Contrary
to
what
was
argued
by
the
appellant’s
counsel,
by
the
contracts
here
in
question
the
appellant
did
not
sell
to
the
CBC
the
rights
that
the
appellant
already
possessed
in
certain
motion
picture
films.
As
the
trial
judge
correctly
found,
the
appellant’s
rights
in
those
films
were
distributor’s
rights,
whereas
the
rights
which
it
granted
to
the
CBC
were
user’s
rights.
It
is
clear
that,
by
those
contracts,
the
appellant,
acting
as
a
distributor
of
certain
films,
agreed,
in
consideration
of
a
lump
sum
payment,
to
supply
for
a
time
copies
of
those
films
to
the
CBC
and
to
grant
it
for
the
same
period
of
time
the
exclusive
right
to
show
them
on
its
television
network.
In
my
view,
the
Trial
judge
was
right
in
holding
that
such
a
contract
is
“lease
of
motion
picture
films”
within
the
meaning
of
paragraph
IV
of
article
13
of
the
Canada-France
Income
Tax
Convention
(1951
SC
c
40).
For
those
reasons,
I
would
dismiss
the
appeal
with
costs.
Email this Content