Citation: 2015 TCC
32
Date: 20150206
Docket: 2012-1292(IT)G
BETWEEN:
FEEDLOT
HEALTH MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD.,
Appellant,
and
HER
MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
REASONS
FOR JUDGMENT
Woods J.
I. Introduction
[1]
In the 2010 taxation year, Feedlot Health
Management Services Ltd. (“FHMS”) undertook four
research projects to test innovative diets, supplements and vaccines on cattle.
The issue is whether certain expenditures in relation to these projects qualify
for deduction pursuant to clause 37(8)(a)(ii)(B) of the Income Tax Act.
[2]
Clause 37(8)(a)(ii)(B) is part of the so-called
proxy method of reporting research and development expenses which enables
taxpayers to elect a simplified method of computation. If the disputed
expenditures qualify for deduction under this provision, the expenditures also
qualify for the investment tax credit (ITC) pursuant to section 127 of the Act.
[3]
The expenditures at issue total $1,649,537.
II. Background facts
[4]
Many of the factual findings below are based on
a comprehensive Partial Agreed Statement of Facts.
[5]
FHMS is an Alberta corporation which is in the
business of providing veterinary-related consulting services. The shares of
FHMS are indirectly owned by four individuals who are veterinarians. The
largest shareholder, with 42.5 percent of the shares, is a corporation that is
wholly-owned by Dr. Gung Kee Jim.
[6]
As part of its business, FHMS undertakes
research projects, either for specific clients or on its own account. FHMS
undertook approximately 40 research projects in the taxation year at issue.
[7]
This appeal relates to four research projects
(the “Projects”) involving the study of special
diets, supplements and vaccines on cattle which were undertaken for sponsors.
The Projects were designed to test the relationship between new diets and
additives to the health and performance of cattle.
[8]
Approximately 7,000 cattle owned by third
parties were studied for purposes of the Projects. The cattle were maintained
in commercial feedlots and were raised for commercial production on behalf of
their owners. The commercial production used standard methods, subject to the
protocols of the Projects.
[9]
The cattle were given particular diets,
supplements or vaccines by the feedlots for several months as required by the
Projects until the cattle were sent to packing plants. Measurements of the
cattle were taken by the feedlots throughout the process and the data was transmitted
to FHMS for analysis.
[10]
FHMS entered into agreements with the feedlots,
called Cooperator Agreements, to conduct work in relation to the Projects,
including data collection.
[11]
FHMS also entered into agreements with GK Jim
Farms (“Jim Farms”) for the supply of a large
percentage of the cattle to be used in the Projects.
[12]
Jim Farms is a sole proprietorship owned by Dr.
Jim which operates a large cattle investment business. The cattle acquired for
the Projects were raised and processed in the same manner as Jim Farms’ other
cattle, subject to modifications agreed with FHMS to conduct its research.
[13]
The disputed amounts totaling $1,649,537
represent the amounts invoiced and paid by FHMS to Jim Farms with respect to
the supply of cattle for purposes of the Projects. The agreements governing
this arrangement are described below.
[14]
In assessing FHMS in relation to the Projects,
the Minister of National Revenue (the “Minister”):
(i) accepted that the Projects involved scientific
research and experimental development (SRED) as defined in the Act,
(ii) accepted that work performed by the feedlots pursuant
to the Cooperator Agreements was SRED, and
(iii) disputed
that any work performed by Jim Farms qualified as SRED and disputed that
amounts paid to Jim Farms were deductible under the proxy method that FHMS had
elected.
III. Agreements between FHMS and Jim
Farms
[15]
FHMS entered into a separate agreement with Jim
Farms for each Project titled “Research Study Agreement”
(RSA). The RSAs are similar, and the terms of a representative agreement are
reproduced below.
Whereas FHMS
requires access to approximately 3,930 head of cattle having certain health and
breed characteristics (“the study cattle”) for use in a research study to
evaluate wheat and corn based dry distiller’s grains plus soluble (DDGS) in the
finishing diet of the study cattle (“FHMS 0803”) and Jim Farms has agreed to
acquire the study cattle for that use, the parties hereby agree to the
following:
1. Jim Farms will acquire, at its expense 3,930 cattle
between September 24 and December 1, 2009 that have the following
characteristics;
a. Acquired
from an auction market
b. Exotic crossbred steers.
2. Jim Farms will request that the cattle be processed to
FHMS specification based on the requirements of research study FHMS 0803
3. Jim Farms will pay all costs associated with acquiring
the cattle, transportation to the feedlot(s) participating in research study
FHMS 0803
4. Jim Farms will pay all feeding costs for such period of
time as to allow FHMS will evaluate the cattle to ensure they meet the
requirement of research study FHMS 0803.
5. Upon acceptance into the study, FHMS agrees to pay all
feeding and health costs associated with the study cattle.
6. Jim Farms agrees to allow FHMS access to all health and
carcass data of the study animals.
7. Jim Farms agrees that all health, feeding and marketing
decisions for the study animals will be made by FHMS.
[16]
The RSAs provide that FHMS will pay all feeding
and health costs relating to the cattle being tested. As described below, this
is not what actually happened.
[17]
In the Crown’s pleaded assumptions, it was
assumed that FHMS paid all the feed costs for three of the Projects and only
one-half the feed costs for the other Project (Reply, para. 20(r)).
[18]
Dr. Jim addressed this assumption in his
testimony. He stated that there was only one Project in which all of the feed
costs were paid by FHMS. He described that FHMS and Jim Farms had negotiated
fees equal to a fixed price per head of cattle, which were sufficient to
compensate Jim Farms for the risks that it took with respect to the RSAs. He
testified that in three of the four Projects the amounts actually paid were
significantly less than the entire feeding costs.
[19]
According to Dr. Jim’s testimony, the negotiated
price was not reflected in the RSAs because tax advice was given that the
consideration should be linked to feed consumed. The suggestion was that expenditures
be claimed as materials consumed which are eligible for deduction under the
proxy method. This is how the tax returns were prepared, but FHMS did not
attempt to justify the tax return filing in this appeal.
[20]
I find Dr. Jim’s testimony on this point to be
troublesome. On its face, it suggests that he and FHMS may have intentionally
not reflected the true arrangement in the RSAs. Dr. Jim suggested that this
error was inadvertent but this testimony is self-interested.
[21]
In light of this, I have viewed the testimony of
Dr. Jim with particular caution.
[22]
I would comment, however, that many parts of Dr.
Jim’s testimony, including the testimony about negotiated fees, were not
controversial and were not challenged by the Crown. I accept that the actual
payments made by FHMS were significantly less than the consideration stated in
the RSAs in three of the Projects as Dr. Jim had testified.
IV. Applicable legislation
[23]
The scheme of the Act in relation to scientific
research expenditures is tortuously complex. The legislation is divided into
three parts:
(i) section 248(1) provides a definition of
activities that qualify as SRED,
(ii) section 37 describes SRED-related expenditures
that are deductible when incurred and can be carried forward to a subsequent
year, and
(iii) section 127 describes SRED-related expenditures that
qualify for ITCs.
[24]
Each of these parts has its own criteria to be
satisfied. To further complicate matters, a taxpayer has a choice to determine qualifying
expenditures under either of the so-called traditional or proxy methods.
[25]
The proxy method is a simplified way to
determine SRED deductions and related ITCs. It was added to the Act in 1994.
Unlike the traditional method, the proxy method only permits taxpayers to claim
listed types of SRED‑related expenditures. The legislative intent is to
exclude certain expenditures such as overhead and in their place to allow a
percentage of SRED-related salaries and wages for ITC purposes.
[26]
For the 2010 taxation year, there were four
general types of SRED-related expenditures that were allowed under the proxy
method - expenditures for facilities or equipment, or leases of same; salaries
and wages; expenditures relating to work done on behalf of the taxpayer; and
the cost of materials consumed.
[27]
The relevant parts of the legislation in force for
the relevant year are set out below. Since the ITC provisions are not at issue,
they have not been reproduced.
248(1)
[…]
“scientific
research and experimental development” means
systematic investigation or search that is carried out in a field of science or
technology by means of experiment or analysis and that is
(a) basic
research, namely, work undertaken for the advancement of scientific knowledge
without a specific practical application in view,
(b) applied
research, namely, work undertaken for the advancement of scientific knowledge
with a specific practical application in view, or
(c) experimental
development, namely, work undertaken for the purpose of achieving technological
advancement for the purpose of creating new, or improving existing, materials, devices,
products or processes, including incremental improvements thereto,
and, in applying
this definition in respect of a taxpayer, includes
(d) work
undertaken by or on behalf of the taxpayer with respect to engineering, design,
operations research, mathematical analysis, computer programming, data
collection, testing or psychological research, where the work is commensurate
with the needs, and directly in support, of work described in paragraph (a),
(b), or (c) that is undertaken in Canada by or on behalf of the taxpayer,
but does not include
work with respect to
(e)
market research or sales promotion,
(f)
quality control or routine testing of materials, devices, products or
processes,
(g)
research in the social sciences or the humanities,
(h)
prospecting, exploring or drilling for, or producing, minerals, petroleum or
natural gas,
(i)
the commercial production of a new or improved material, device or product or
the commercial use of a new or improved process,
(j)
style changes, or
(k) routine data collection;
37(1) Scientific research and experimental development – Where
a taxpayer carried on a business in Canada in a taxation year, there may be
deducted in computing the taxpayer’s income from the business for the year such
amount as the taxpayer claims not exceeding the amount, if any, by which the
total of
(a)
the total of all amounts each of which is an expenditure of a current nature
made by the taxpayer in the year or in a preceding taxation year ending after
1973
(i) on
scientific research and experimental development carried on in Canada, directly undertaken by or on behalf of the taxpayer, and related to a business of
the taxpayer,
[…]
37(8)
Interpretation – In this section
(a)
references to expenditures on or in respect of scientific research and experimental
development
[…]
(ii)
where the references occur other than in subsection (2), include only
(A)
expenditures incurred by a taxpayer in a taxation year (other than a taxation
year for which the taxpayer has elected under clause (B)), each of which is
(I) an
expenditure of a current nature all or substantially all of which was
attributable to the prosecution, or to the provision of premises, facilities or
equipment for the prosecution, of scientific research and experimental
development in Canada,
(II) an
expenditure of a current nature directly attributable, as determined by regulation,
to the prosecution, or to the provision of premises, facilities or equipment
for the prosecution, of scientific research and experimental development in
Canada, or
(III) an
expenditure of a capital nature that at the time it was incurred was for the
provision of premises, facilities or equipment, where at that time it was
intended
1.
that it would be used during all or substantially all of its operating time in
its expected useful life for, or
2. that
all or substantially all of its value would be consumed in,
the
prosecution of scientific research and experimental development in Canada, and
(B) where a taxpayer has elected in prescribed form and in
accordance with subsection (10) for a taxation year, expenditures incurred by
the taxpayer in the year each of which is
(I)
an expenditure of a current nature for, and all or substantially all of which
was attributable to, the lease of premises, facilities or equipment for the
prosecution of scientific research and experimental development in Canada, other
than an expenditure in respect of general purpose office equipment or furniture,
(II)
an expenditure in respect of the prosecution of scientific research and
experimental development in Canada directly undertaken on behalf of the
taxpayer,
(III)
an expenditure described in subclause (A)(III), other than an expenditure in
respect of general purpose office equipment or furniture,
(IV)
that portion of an expenditure made in respect of an expense incurred in the
year for salary or wages of an employee who is directly engaged in scientific
research and experimental development in Canada that can reasonably be
considered to relate to such work having regard to the time spent by the
employee thereon, and, for this purpose, where that portion is all or substantially
all of the expenditure, that portion shall be deemed to be the amount of the
expenditure,
(V)
the cost of materials consumed or transformed in the prosecution of scientific
research and experimental development in Canada, or
(VI) ½ of any other
expenditure of a current nature in respect of the lease of premises, facilities
or equipment used primarily for the prosecution of scientific research and
experimental development in Canada, other than an expenditure in respect of
general purpose office equipment or furniture;
[…]
V. Analysis
A. Introduction
[28]
The issue is whether the disputed expenditures
qualify for deduction under the proxy method in s. 37(8)(a)(ii)(B) of the Act. FHMS is
required to use this method as a result of an irrevocable election made with
respect to the 2010 taxation year.
[29]
As mentioned earlier, only listed types of
expenditures qualify under the proxy method. They are set out in clauses (I)
through (VI) of s. 37(8)(a)(ii)(B).
[30]
In its notice of appeal, FHMS submitted that the
disputed expenditures qualify under the proxy method either because they are
for a lease of equipment (i.e., cattle) (clauses (I) or (VI)) or because the
expenditures are in respect of SRED undertaken on its behalf (clause II). FHMS
chose not to pursue clause (II) during argument, but the Crown did address it
in its submissions.
[31]
Despite the abandonment of the clause (II)
argument by FHMS, after the hearing I concluded that this provision should be
considered and invited the parties to make further submissions. The relevant
principles for a Court to raise an issue of its own motion were recently
described in R. v Mian, 2014 SCC 54. I am satisfied that it is important to consider
clause (II) in the context of this appeal and that neither party is prejudiced
by my raising it.
[32]
Both parties responded to my request with detailed
and helpful submissions. Not surprisingly, FHMS took the position that clause
(II) applied and the Crown took the opposite view.
[33]
Clause (II) will be discussed later in these
reasons. I begin with the lease issue.
B. Are disputed expenditures for lease of equipment?
[34]
FHMS submits that the disputed expenditures are
for leases of equipment, namely leases of cattle, within clauses (I) and (VI)
of s. 37(8)(a)(ii)(B).
[35]
It is only necessary to focus on clause (I)
which is reproduced below.
(I) an
expenditure of a current nature for, and all or substantially all of which was
attributable to, the lease of premises, facilities or equipment for
the prosecution of scientific research and experimental development in Canada,
other than an expenditure in respect of general purpose office equipment or
furniture,
[Emphasis added]
[36]
Counsel for FHMS submits that the terms “lease” and “equipment” have
broad meanings and that a purposive interpretation would include access to cattle
that is provided under the RSAs.
[37]
The Crown, on the other hand, submits that the
RSAs are not “leases” and that cattle are not “equipment” within the ordinary meaning of these terms.
[38]
I have concluded that clause (I), and its
companion clause (VI), do not apply because the RSAs are not leases.
[39]
The term “lease,” when
used as a noun, is defined in the Canadian Oxford Dictionary (2nd
ed.):
lease 1 an agreement by which the owner of a building, apartment,
vehicle, piece of land, etc. allows another to use it for a specified time in
return for payment. […]
[40]
In my view, the rights of FHMS under the RSAs
fall short of being leases.
[41]
The RSAs impose an obligation on Jim Farms to acquire
certain types of cattle, transport them to specific feedlots, allow FHMS to
make health, feeding and marketing decisions, and give FHMS the right to access
data. I understand that FHMS’ right to make marketing decisions generally means
that the cattle will be processed at specific times to accommodate the
Projects.
[42]
Coincident with the RSAs, the cattle were also
acquired, raised and processed for Jim Farms’ benefit in a manner identical to
its regular business, except to the extent necessary to accommodate the
Projects.
[43]
A lease implies exclusive possession: Johnson v British Canadian Insurance
Company, [1932] S.C.R. 680, at 685.
[44]
I find that FHMS did not have exclusive
possession of the cattle during the period of the RSAs, and that it only had
limited rights with respect to the cattle.
[45]
I refer below to parts of Dr. Jim’s testimony
regarding the management of the cattle. The testimony suggests that Jim Farms
retained some rights with respect to the cattle throughout the period of the
RSAs.
(i) Dr. Jim stated that Jim Farms gave up “several important things with respect to the cattle.
[…] feeding protocols, the health protocols and the marketing protocols […]” (Transcript, p. 42).
(ii) Dr. Jim described the invoices issued by the commercial feedlots
to Jim Farms as being “for all of the collective
feed and other things that were required to get the feedlot cattle through the
feedlot phase of production.” (Transcript, p. 51).
(iii) In cross-examination, Dr. Jim confirmed that the invoices
refer to “expense items for feed, yardage,
bedding, health and rendering […]” (Transcript, p. 66).
[46]
I conclude that the RSAs do not provide for
exclusive possession of the cattle and are not leases.
[47]
Counsel for FHMS submits that a broad interpretation
should be given to the term “lease” in order for
section 37 to achieve its purpose. In my view, it would be stretching the
meaning of “lease” beyond a reasonable
interpretation if it encompassed the limited rights that FHMS acquired under
the RSAs.
[48]
I would conclude, therefore, that the disputed
expenditures are not within clauses (I) or (VI) of s. 37(8)(a)(ii)(B).
C. Are disputed expenditures in respect of SRED undertaken on
behalf of FHMS?
(1) Introduction
[49]
In its supplemental submissions, FHMS submits
that the disputed expenditures qualify for deduction under clause (II) of s.
37(8)(a)(ii)(B). The provision reads:
(II)
an expenditure in respect of the prosecution of scientific research and
experimental development in Canada directly undertaken on behalf of the
taxpayer,
[50]
The question is whether the disputed
expenditures are in respect of the prosecution of SRED directly undertaken on
behalf of FHMS.
[51]
The Crown submits that clause (II) does not
apply because the work performed by Jim Farms under the RSAs is not SRED, as
that term is defined in s. 248(1) of the Act.
[52]
FHMS submits that Jim Farms did perform SRED,
and that in any event it is not necessary that Jim Farms perform SRED because
expenditures qualify if they are “in respect of” SRED.
[53]
If the work performed by Jim Farms is SRED, it is
clear that the disputed expenditures qualify for deduction under clause (II).
It is less clear that they qualify if the work is not SRED.
[54]
For the reasons below, I have concluded that the
work performed by Jim Farms is not SRED because of the commercial exclusion in
paragraph (i) of the definition. However, in my view the disputed expenditures qualify
for deduction under clause (II) as being “in respect of” SRED undertaken by a
third party.
[55]
There are two questions: is the work SRED, and
are the expenditures within clause (II). Logically, the analysis should begin
with whether the work is SRED. However, since I have concluded that the work
does not necessarily have to be SRED, I will begin with clause (II). The SRED
analysis will follow.
(2) Clause
(II) of s. 37(8)(a)(ii)(B)
[56]
The disputed expenditures will qualify for
deduction under clause (II) if they are in respect of the prosecution of SRED
directly undertaken on behalf of FHMS. It is useful to reproduce clause (II) again.
(II)
an expenditure in respect of the prosecution of scientific research and
experimental development in Canada directly undertaken on behalf of the
taxpayer,
[57]
I have concluded that clause (II) applies
because the disputed expenditures are in respect of SRED performed by the
feedlots on behalf of the taxpayer.
[58]
The sole purpose of the disputed expenditures
was to facilitate the Projects by arranging for cattle to be delivered to
specific feedlots so that the feedlots could administer the tests and collect
relevant data to be analysed by FHMS. In essence, the disputed expenditures
were incurred to provide subjects for scientific research. As such, the
disputed expenditures are in respect of SRED undertaken by FHMS, and they are
also in respect of SRED undertaken by the feedlots on behalf of FHMS, namely
data collection. Expenditures in respect of SRED undertaken by the feedlots qualify
under clause (II).
[59]
I now turn to some of the submissions of the
parties.
[60]
The Crown suggests that clause (II) does not
apply because the work performed by Jim Farms is not SRED.
[61]
The difficulty with this submission is that it
does not give sufficient weight to the phrase “in respect
of.” Clause (II) does not simply apply to expenditures “for” SRED but also expenditures “in
respect of” SRED. This phrase, in my view, extends the qualifying
expenditures under clause (II) to include expenditures that relate to SRED.
[62]
It is well understood that the phrase “in respect of” generally has a very wide scope in the Act. For example, in The Queen v Savage,
[1983] 2 S.C.R. 428, at para. 23, the Supreme Court of Canada referenced the
following passage from Nowegijick v The Queen, 83
DTC 5041:
The
words “in respect of” are, in my opinion, words of the widest possible scope.
They import such meanings as “in relation to”, “with reference to” or “in
connection with”. The phrase “in respect of” is probably the widest of any expression
intended to convey some connection between two related subject matters.
[63]
Accordingly, qualifying expenditures for
purposes of clause (II) do not have to be incurred for SRED per se.
[64]
The Crown also submits that some of the disputed
expenditures do not relate to SRED because the quantum of the expenditures was
excessive in relation to the work undertaken by Jim Farms for the Projects. This
submission challenges the reasonableness of the disputed expenditures.
[65]
Although the evidence appears to provide some
support for this position, I have concluded that it is not appropriate to
consider it because it was not raised as an issue in the Reply.
[66]
By way of background, it is clear from the
pleadings that the Crown chose not to challenge the reasonableness of the
disputed expenditures. FHMS raised it head-on as an issue in the Notice of
Appeal and the Crown chose not refer to it in the Reply. FHMS was correct to
conclude that reasonableness was not an issue. Accordingly, I have assumed for
purposes of this decision that the quantum of the disputed expenditures was
reasonable in relation to the work performed for FHMS.
[67]
I would also comment concerning a submission
made by FHMS. As I understand it, FHMS suggests that clause (II) applies
because the disputed expenditures are for work performed by Jim Farms on behalf
of the taxpayer and the disputed expenditures relate to SRED performed by FHMS.
[68]
Accordingly, FHMS suggests that clause (II) will
apply even if there is no contract for third party SRED. This submission gives
an overly broad interpretation of this provision. In my view, Parliament likely
intended that clause (II) apply only to expenditures in respect of SRED where
the SRED is undertaken by a third party. This interpretation is in accordance
with the text of the legislation, and it also makes sense within the scheme of
the proxy method which is intended to limit the types of expenditures that
qualify.
[69]
However, for the reasons above I conclude that
the disputed expenditures qualify for deduction pursuant to clause (II) of s.
37(8)(a)(ii)(B).
(3) Is the work performed by Jim Farms
SRED?
[70]
In light of the conclusion above, it is not necessary
to consider whether the work undertaken by Jim Farms pursuant to the RSAs is
actually SRED. However, I received extensive submissions on this issue and will
comment briefly.
[71]
The Crown submits that the work undertaken by
Jim Farms is not SRED as it is not described in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), or
(d) of the SRED definition. The Crown also submits that the work is excluded
under paragraph (i).
[72]
I will focus on the paragraph (i) exclusion
because it seems clear to me that the work undertaken by Jim Farms is otherwise
SRED since it is with respect to testing and data collection which qualifies
under paragraph (d). The position of the Crown that the work performed by Jim
Farms does not fit within paragraph (d) appears to ignore the phrase “with respect to.”
[73]
Paragraph (i) of the SRED definition reads:
“scientific
research and experimental development” means
systematic investigation or search that is carried out in a field of science or
technology by means of experiment or analysis and that is
[…]
but does not include work with respect to
[…]
(i) the
commercial production of a new or improved material, device or product or the
commercial use of a new or improved process,
[74]
The Crown’s position with respect to this
provision is summarized in the Reply as follows:
The
Payments for feed for – and raising of – the feedlot cattle in the 4 Projects
were attributable to the commercial production of improved Farms’ feedlot
cattle or the commercial use of an improved process for raising Farms’ feedlot
cattle at the commercial feedlots.
[75]
I would make a few preliminary comments about
the Crown’s position.
[76]
First, the above statement focuses on “Payments.” However, the
commercial use exclusion relates to the work performed and not the
consideration paid. The payments under the RSAs are not relevant to this
inquiry.
[77]
Second, the Reply refers to commercial
production and use that is “improved.” The term “improved” implies that the
research has already been proven, which is not the case here. However, nothing
turns on this because the legislation also refers to “new” products and
processes. In this case, there was use of “new”
feeding and health protocols.
[78]
I turn then to the main question, which is
whether the work performed by Jim Farms under the RSAs is in respect of the commercial
use of new processes.
[79]
What is the work undertaken by Jim Farms under
the RSAs? The work includes the acquisition of cattle and permitting FHMS to
determine feed and supplement protocols. These activities are for the benefit
of FHMS, but they are also exploited by Jim Farms in its ordinary business of
raising cattle. Other activities, such as allowing FHMS access to data, do not
relate to Jim Farms’ regular business.
[80]
In my view, a sufficient number of activities
under the RSAs are connected with Jim Farms’ regular business that the work
under the RSAs is generally “with respect to” Jim
Farms’ commercial use of new processes. I note that the exclusion applies not
only to commercial use by a taxpayer, but also to commercial use by a third
party, provided that the work performed is in respect of commercial use. This appears
to be Parliament’s intent.
[81]
Counsel for FHMS submits that this interpretation
unduly restricts expenditures that should be allowed under the SRED regime. I
would comment that each case depends on its own particular facts. In this case,
the work performed by Jim Farms under the RSAs is subject to the commercial
exclusion because of its integration with Jim Farms’ own commercial activity.
VI. Disposition
[82]
In the result, the appeal will be allowed with
costs to the appellant.
Signed at Toronto, Ontario this 6th day of February 2015.
“J.M. Woods”
Email this Content