Muldoon,
J.
[Orally]:
—The
facts
in
this
case
are
relatively
clear.
Indeed,
the
basic
facts
expressed
in
the
first
six
paragraphs
of
the
plaintiff's
amended
statement
of
claim
are
admitted
by
the
defendant.
As
the
trial
unfolded
the
de
facto
agreement
on
the
facts
increased
beyond
that
in
the
pleadings.
Both
parties
were
represented
by
counsel
who
presented
their
respective
client's
cases
vigorously
and
well.
After
attentive
harkening
to
the
evidence
and
counsel's
arguments
during
these
two
days
the
Court
concludes
that
the
evidence
and
the
law
abundantly
and
simply
favour
the
plaintiff's
side
of
this
dispute.
It
would
always
be
possible
to
reserve
judgment
for
the
production
of
elaborated
findings
of
facts
and
determinations
of
the
legal
issues.
Possible,
yes,
but
the
Court
considers
that
the
reserving
of
judgment
here
is
neither
necessary
or
desirable.
The
Court
is
content
to
adopt
and
ratify
Mr.
Finlay's
oral
argument
including
exchanges
with
the
Court
as
the
Court's
reasons
for
judgment.
That
is
not
to
say
that
Mr.
Prefontaine's
valiant
efforts
for
the
defendant
were
not
appreciated.
They
were
appreciated
and,
indeed,
savoured
by
the
Court.
It
is
only
to
say
that
valiant
as
Mr.
Préfontaine's
efforts
have
been
they
cannot
alter
the
facts
and
the
law,
including
inferences
which
arise
from
both
facts,
and
law,
with
which
the
defendant
is
confronted
in
this
case.
Slim
as
the
facts
may
be
here,
they
carry
conclusions
such
as
the
Supreme
Court
of
Canada
reached
in
the
case
of
Bank
of
Nova
Scotia
v.
The
King,
[1930]
S.C.R.
174.
The
postage
meter
machines
upon
whose
leasing
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
would
impose
sales
or
consumption
tax
levied
in
section
7
of
the
Excise
Tax
Act
are
exempted
from
such
tax
pursuant
to
section
1
(a)(i)
of
Part
XIII
of
Schedule
III
of
the
Act.
The
use
and
history
of
the
term
“office
equipment"
or
“matériel
de
bureau”
convince
the
Court
that
it
is
not
applicable
to
the
postage
meter
machines
which
are
leased
to
Pitney
Bowes
customers.
The
determination
of
their
exemption
from
tax,
without
exception
as
office
equipment,
is
not
without
difficulty
because
as
counsel
has
said,
it
is
a
matter
of
determining
where
the
line
must
be
drawn.
The
defendant's
case
is
on
the
facts
and
on
the
law,
too
tenuous
and
tortured
to
be
accepted
by
the
Court.
That
is
partly
why
the
Court
adopts
and
ratifies
the
plaintiff's
counsel’s
argument
which
the
Court
also
finds
to
be
inherently
consonant
with
the
correct
conclusion
in
law.
The
testing
of
this
conclusion
in
the
appeal
Division
remains
open
to
the
Crown.
Judgment
will
issue
in
the
plaintiff's
favour,
with
costs,
and
of
course
by
independent
operation
of
subsection
51.38(8)
of
the
Excise
Tax
Act
the
plaintiff
is
entitled
to
interest
from
May
1,
1986.
Pursuant
to
Rule
337(2)(b)
the
plaintiff's
solicitors
may
prepare
a
draft
of
an
appropriate
judgment
to
implement
the
Court's
conclusion.
If
at
all
possible
the
plaintiff's
solicitors
should
first
obtain
approval
as
to
form,
if
not
content,
of
that
draft
from
the
defendant's
solicitors.
That
concludes
the
Court's
reasons
in
this
case.
Action
allowed.
Email this Content