O’Connor
T.C.J.:
This
appeal
was
heard
at
Vancouver,
British
Columbia
on
April
26,
1999
pursuant
to
the
General
Procedure
of
this
Court.
Testimony
was
given
by
the
Appellant
herself
and
by
the
Appellant’s
chartered
accountant,
Brian
Shpak.
Also,
a
Statement
of
Agreed
Facts
and
Documents
(36
in
number)
was
submitted.
The
document
at
Tab
18
was
missing
but
this
was
not
critical.
The
Statement
of
Agreed
Facts
reads
as
follows:
Statement
of
Agreed
Facts
and
Documents
The
Parties
hereby
agree
that
for
purposes
only
of
this
Appeal
and
any
appeal
therefrom
or
any
other
proceeding
taken
in
this
matter,
the
facts
set
out
herein
are
true.
Either
party
may
adduce
other
evidence
not
inconsistent
with
these
facts.
The
parties
also
agree
that
the
documents
referred
to
herein
are
true
copies
of
the
documents
they
represent.
Either
party
may
adduce
other
documents,
not
inconsistent
with
these
documents.
1.
The
Appellant
resides
in
the
City
of
Vancouver,
in
the
Province
of
British
Columbia.
2.
Yang-Myung
Holdings
Ltd.
(“Holdings”)
and
Yang-Myung
Hotel
Management
Ltd.
(“Management”)
are
corporations
duly
incorporated
under
the
laws
of
the
Province
of
British
Columbia.
(Together,
Holdings
and
Management
shall
be
referred
to
as
the
“Companies”.)
3.
Holdings
is
the
registered
owner
of
certain
lands
and
premises
located
in
Vancouver,
British
Columbia,
commonly
known
as
the
Astoria
Hotel,
and
legally
described
as
detailed
in
Tab
1
(the
“Subject
Properties”).
Management
operates
the
Astoria
Hotel.
4.
The
Companies’
each
have
a
fiscal
year
end
of
July
31.
5.
Copies
of
the
corporate
income
tax
returns
for
Holdings
for
the
years
ending
July
31,
1992
to
July
31,
1996,
inclusive,
are
attached
hereto
at
Tabs
2
to
6.
6.
Copies
of
the
corporate
income
tax
returns
for
Management
for
the
years
ending
July
31,
1993
to
July
31,
1996,
inclusive,
are
attached
hereto
at
Tabs
7
to
10.
7.
On
or
about
February
6,
1991,
the
Appellant’s
spouse,
Gudy
Singh
Sahota,
also
known
as
Gurdyal
Sahota,
entered
into
an
Agreement
of
Purchase
and
Sale
(the
“Purchase
Agreement”)
whereby
he
offered
to
purchase
all
of
the
issued
shares
and
shareholders’
loan
accounts,
if
any,
of
the
Companies.
The
completion
date
was
March
18,
1991.
A
copy
of
the
Purchase
Agreement
is
attached
hereto
at
Tab
11.
8.
On
or
about
March
6,
1991,
the
Appellant’s
spouse
executed
an
assignment
of
his
rights
title
and
interest
under
the
Purchase
Agreement
to
the
Appellant
for
“good
and
valuable
consideration”.
A
copy
of
the
assignment
is
attached
hereto
at
Tab
12.
9.
At
the
time
of
the
share
purchase,
there
was
an
outstanding
loan
in
the
Companies’
names,
being
a
loan
with
the
Toronto
Dominion
Bank
as
lender
(the
“TD
Loan”).
The
TD
Loan
was
secured
by
a
Joint
Debenture,
which
included
a
mortgage
granted
by
Holdings
over
the
Subject
Properties
(the
“TD
Mortgage”).
The
original
amount
of
the
TD
Loan
was
$1.7
million,
and
the
balance
of
the
TD
Loan
at
the
time
of
the
share
purchase
was
$1,459,374.95.
A
copy
of
the
Joint
Debenture
is
attached
hereto
at
Tab
13.
10.
To
assist
in
the
purchase,
$1.8
million
was
borrowed
from
the
Banca
Commerciale
Italiana
of
Canada
(the
bank
shall
be
referred
to
as
the
“Italian
Bank”
and
the
$1.8
million
loan
shall
be
referred
to
as
the
“First
Italian
Bank
Loan’’).
A
copy
of
the
Commitment
Letter
setting
out
the
terms
of
that
loan
is
attached
hereto
at
Tab
14.
11.
As
part
of
the
security
required
by
the
Italian
Bank
for
the
$1.8
million
loan,
the
Companies
provided
a
Promissory
Note,
and
the
Appellant
and
4
other
family
members
executed
guarantees
to
the
Italian
Bank.
Copies
of
the
Promissory
Note
and
the
guarantees
are
attached
hereto
at
Tabs
15
and
16,
respectively.
12.
On
completion
of
the
share
purchase,
the
TD
Mortgage
under
the
Joint
Debenture
remained
on
the
Subject
Properties,
with
some
modifications.
A
copy
of
the
Modification
of
Mortgage
is
attached
hereto
at
Tab
17.
Copies
of
the
Statement
of
Adjustments
and
Supplementary
Statement
of
Adjustments
are
attached
hereto
at
Tab
17A.
13.
The
Appellant
has
been
the
sole
shareholder
and
sole
director,
as
well
as
the
president
and
secretary,
for
both
Holdings
and
Management
since
March
18,
1991.
14.
In
June
and
July,
1993,
the
following
events
took
place:
a)
the
Italian
Bank
granted
a
loan,
in
the
Companies’
names,
in
the
amount
of
$3.2
million.
The
Commitment
Letter
setting
out
the
terms
of
that
loan
is
attached
hereto
at
Tab
18;
b)
as
part
of
the
security
for
the
$3.2
million
loan,
Holdings
granted
a
mortgage
to
the
Italian
Bank
over
the
Subject
Properties,
for
the
principal
amount
of
$3.2
million
(the
“Subject
Mortgage”).
A
copy
of
the
Subject
Mortgage
is
attached
hereto
at
Tab
19;
C)
as
additional
security,
the
Appellant
and
4
other
family
members
each
executed
guarantees
to
the
Italian
Bank.
A
copy
of
the
Appellant’s
guarantee
(the
“Guarantee”)
is
attached
hereto
at
Tab
20.
The
guarantees
of
the
other
family
members
were
similar
to
the
Appellant’s
Guarantee;
d)
Holdings
and
Management
executed
Directors’
Resolutions
and
the
Appellant
executed
Officers’
Certificates
for
both
Companies
with
respect
to,
inter
alia,
the
borrowing
of
the
$3.2
million
loan.
Copies
of
the
Directors’
Resolutions
and
Officers’
Certificates
are
attached
hereto
at
Tabs
21
to
24;
e)
Holdings
and
Management
executed
an
Acknowledgment
of
Borrower
re:
PPSA,
a
copy
of
which
is
attached
hereto
at
Tab
25;
f)
Holdings
and
Management
executed
a
Security
Agreement
(Real
and
Personal
Property),
a
copy
of
which
is
attached
hereto
at
Tab
26;
g)
Holdings
and
Management
executed
an
Order
to
Pay
to
the
Italian
Bank,
a
copy
of
which
is
attached
hereto
at
Tab
27;
h)
Holdings,
Management,
and
all
the
family
members
who
had
given
guarantees,
executed
a
Letter
of
Undertaking
not
to
further
encumber
the
Subject
Property,
a
copy
of
which
is
attached
hereto
at
Tab
28;
i)
a
Loan
Indemnification
Agreement
was
executed
between
the
Appellant
and
Holdings.
A
copy
of
the
Loan
Indemnification
Agreement
is
attached
hereto
as
Tab
29.
15.
The
$3.2
million
Italian
Bank
loan
was
sought
in
order
to
obtain
new
financing
in
the
form
of
a
lower
rate
first
mortgage
sufficient
to
repay
both
the
TD
Loan
and
the
First
Italian
Bank
Loan
and
to
provide
additional
working
capital.
16.
Of
the
$3.2
million
borrowed,
$1,747,026
(or
54.6%)
was
used
to
pay
out
the
remaining
balance
on
the
First
Italian
Bank
Loan.
17.
Working
papers
for
Holdings
for
the
years
ended
July
31,
1994
and
July
31,
1995
are
attached
hereto
at
Tabs
30
and
31,
respectively.
18.
The
Subject
Mortgage
required
Holdings,
as
the
mortgagor,
to
make
monthly
periodic
payments
of
principal
and
interest
in
the
amount
of
$29,447.38
(the
“Mortgage
Payments”).
19.
At
all
material
times,
Management
paid
the
monthly
Mortgage
Payments
by
cheques
written
on
its
own
bank
account.
A
copy
of
a
sample
cheque
is
attached
hereto
at
Tab
32.
20.
At
year
end,
adjusting
journal
entries
were
made
between
the
Companies
to
reflect
rent
owned
by
Management
to
Holdings
and
mortgage
payments
made
by
Management.
Holdings
also
charged
an
amount
representing
54.6%
of
the
Mortgage
Payments
to
the
Appellant
by
reducing
the
balance
of
the
Appellant’s
shareholder’s
loan
account
accordingly.
The
remaining
45.4%
of
the
Mortgage
Payments
were
reflected
in
Holdings
financial
statements.
21.
The
Italian
Bank
did
not
make
a
demand
for
payment
on
the
Appellant
under
either
the
Appellant’s
guarantee
for
the
$1.8
million
loan
or
the
Appellant’s
guarantee
for
the
$3.2
million
loan.
22.
In
filing
her
income
tax
return
for
the
1994
taxation
year,
the
Appellant
reported
total
income
before
deductions
in
the
amount
of
$183,840,
calculated
as
follows:
Employment
Income
|
$
65,000
|
Interest
and
other
investment
income
|
28,840
|
Business
Income
|
90,000
|
|
$183,840
|
The
business
income
of
$90,000
represented
a
management
fee
paid
to
the
Appellant
by
Holdings.
A
copy
of
the
Appellant’s
1994
income
tax
return
is
attached
hereto
at
Tab
33.
23.
In
computing
income
for
the
1994
taxation
year,
the
Appellant
claimed
an
interest
expense
in
the
amount
of
$160,214
as
a
deduction
from
income.
The
amount
of
$160,214
represents
54.6%
of
the
total
interest
paid
on
the
Subject
Mortgage
in
the
calendar
year
1994.
24.
The
Minister
of
National
Revenue
(the
“Minister”)
initially
assessed
the
Appellant
for
the
1994
taxation
year
by
Notice
dated
September
5,
1995.
In
so
assessing,
the
Minister
disallowed
the
claimed
interest
expense.
A
copy
of
the
Notice
of
Assessment
is
attached
hereto
at
Tab
34.
25.
The
Appellant
objected
to
the
September
4,
1995
assessment
by
Notice
dated
January
12,
1996.
The
Minister
confirmed
the
assessment
by
Notice
of
Confirmation
dated
May
30,
1997.
Copies
of
the
Notice
of
Objection
and
Notice
of
Confirmation
are
attached
hereto
at
Tabs
35
and
36,
respectively.
The
Appellant’s
testimony
was
essentially
to
the
effect
that
everything
had
been
arranged
by
Mr.
Shpak,
the
chartered
accountant,
and
that
she
followed
his
advice
in
all
respects.
Mr.
Shpak
testified
that
he
made
the
arrangements
with
the
banks
as
to
the
loans,
that
the
true
borrower
of
the
First
Italian
Bank
Loan
and
of
the
54.6%
of
the
$3.2
million
loan
was
the
Appellant.
However,
the
bank
required
that
the
$3.2
million
loan
be
placed
in
the
name
of
the
Companies,
i.e.,
the
Companies
were
the
borrowers
with
the
Appellant
and
others
being
guarantors.
He
testified
further
that
the
bank
was
reluctant
to
lend
money
secured
merely
against
shares
in
the
Companies
but
demanded
security
directly
on
the
hotel
and
its
contents
and
this
was
the
reason
the
Companies
were
shown
as
borrowers.
Although
the
Companies
were
shown
as
borrowers
in
the
loan
documentation,
the
true
borrower
or
the
de
facto
borrower
was
the
Appellant
and
that
this
is
supported
by
the
financial
statements
and
working
papers
of
the
Companies.
Mr.
Shpak
also
testified
to
the
effect
that
it
was
part
of
the
tradition
of
the
Appellant’s
extended
family
that
each
member
should
acquire
real
estate
and
most
commonly,
hotels
and
that
since
the
Appellant
was
the
only
member
of
the
family
who
did
not
have
such
an
investment,
it
was
decided
that
the
Appellant
would
acquire
real
estate
comprising
the
Astoria
Hotel
through
her
acquisition
of
the
shares
of
the
Companies.
Mr.
Shpak
also
stated
that
the
bank,
although
not
a
party
to
the
Loan
Indemnification
Agreement,
was
certainly
aware
of
the
agency
situation,
that
the
bank
knew
the
purpose
of
the
First
Italian
Bank
Loan
was
to
enable
the
Appellant
to
purchase
the
shares
of
the
Companies
and
54.6%
of
the
$3.2
million
loan
was
used
to
pay
of
the
First
Italian
Bank
Loan.
Issue
The
issue
in
this
appeal
is
whether
the
Appellant
is
entitled
to
a
deduction
for
interest
paid
in
1994
on
54.6%
of
the
$3.2
million
loan.
Appellant’s
submission
The
Appellant’s
basic
submission
is
that
the
de
facto
borrower
of
54.6%
of
the
$3.2
million
loan
was
the
Appellant
and
the
proceeds
representing
the
said
54.6%
was
used
to
pay
out
the
First
Italian
Bank
Loan,
the
proceeds
of
which
had
been
used
to
purchase
the
shares
of
the
Companies.
He
refers
in
particular
to
the
Loan
Indemnification
Agreement
at
Tab
29.
To
quote
from
the
Appellant’s
written
submissions:
Appellant
as
de
facto
borrower
18.
The
first
issue
is
whether
the
Appellant
is
entitled
to
this
deduction
even
though
the
loans
were
in
the
Companies’
names.
The
Appellant
submits
that
the
Appellant
is
the
de
facto
borrower
in
this
loan,
even
if
the
loan
is
in
the
Companies
names.
The
loan
was
obtained
for
the
specific
purpose
of
purchasing
shares
and
shareholder’s
loans
accounts
for
the
Appellant.
The
shares
are
in
the
name
of
the
Appellant.
It
is
respectfully
submitted
that
while
the
loan
may
have
been
in
the
name
of
the
Companies,
the
loan
was
obtained
on
behalf
of
the
Appellant,
and
accordingly,
there
was
an
agency
type
relationship
between
the
Appellant
and
the
Companies
with
respect
to
this
loan.
19.
With
respect
to
this
issue,
the
Appellant
relies
upon
the
Tax
Appeal
Board
decision
in
Zatzman
v.
Minister
of
National
Revenue
(1959),
59
D.T.C.
635
(Can.
Tax
App.
Bd.).
In
this
decision,
two
transactions
were
asserted
by
the
Minister
to
be
loans
from
the
company
to
the
primary
shareholder,
and
as
such
taxable
as
dividend
income.
The
taxpayer
argued
that
the
loans
were
actually
made
by
a
third
party
through
the
company
to
him,
and
that
the
company
merely
acted
as
an
agent
to
facilitate
the
loan.
With
respect
to
the
first
loan
considered
in
the
judg-
ment,
the
Appellant
approached
a
friend,
and
asked
the
friend
to
discount
a
$12,000
note.
The
friend
signed
the
note
as
president
of
Dominion
Metal
Co.,
and
signed
it
over
to
the
Appellant’s
company,
Dartmouth
Scrapyards
Ltd.
The
Appellant’s
company
then
forwarded
$12,000
to
the
Appellant
on
account
of
the
note.
With
respect
to
this
advance,
the
court
held
that
it
was
a
loan
obtained
by
the
Appellant
from
his
friend
(or
his
friend’s
company),
and
that
the
Appellant’s
company
merely
acted
as
an
agent.
Similarly,
we
say
that
in
this
case,
the
First
Italian
Bank
Loan
was
a
loan
obtained
by
the
Appellant
herein
from
the
Italian
Bank,
and
the
company
merely
acted
as
an
agent
in
facilitating
the
transaction.
Consolidation
of
loan
21.
The
second
issue
is
whether
the
consolidation
of
the
two
loans
precludes
the
Appellant
from
claiming
this
deduction.
The
Appellant
relies
upon
the
decision
in
Riddell
v.
Minister
of
National
Revenue
[(1986),
86
D.T.C.
1374
(Fed.
T.D.)]
in
support
of
its
proposition
that
the
Appellant
is
not
precluded
from
claiming
the
interest
paid
as
a
deduction.
22.
In
Riddell,
the
Appellant
obtained
a
loan
to
purchase
shares
in
the
coAppellant
company.
In
1976,
he
obtained
an
opportunity
to
consolidate
this
loan
with
a
loan
of
the
company’s,
and
did
so.
In
1978,
he
obtained
a
personal
loan,
and
a
company
loan,
to
pay
out
the
consolidation
loan.
The
personal
loan
was
to
pay
out
his
portion
of
the
consolidation
loan.
At
all
material
times,
the
company
made
both
the
principle
[sic]
and
interes
payments
on
the
loan
on
behalf
of
Mr.
Riddell,
expensing
the
payments
as
either
wages
or
as
deductions
to
the
shareholder’s
loans
account.
He
declared
his
proportionate
share
of
the
interest
on
the
consolidation
loan,
and
at
appeal
it
was
held
by
this
court
that
he
should
be
entitled
to
the
deduction.
23.
The
court
specifically
allowed
the
appeal
on
the
issue
of
the
interest
deductions,
holding
(at
page
5533):
I
take
an
entirely
different
view
however,
with
respect
to
whether
Mr.
Riddell
should
be
permitted
to
deduct
the
interest
payments
in
computing
his
personal
income
tax
returns
for
the
years
in
question.
On
this
issue,
I
am
satisfied
the
plaintiff
s
appeal
should
be
allowed.
The
evidence
demonstrates
that
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
had
a
policy
in
effect,
which
under
these
circumstances,
permitted
taxpayers
to
make
the
deductions
Mr.
Riddell
was
seeking
to
make.
24.
The
appellant’s
position,
simply
put,
is
two-fold:
a.
This
decision
is
evidence
of
the
Minister’s
policy,
which
is
corroborated
by
Mr.
Shpak’s
testimony,
that
the
Ministry
allows
taxpayers,
such
as
Ms.
Sahota,
to
make
deductions
for
interest
paid
on
account
of
loans
to
purchase
shares
in
companies,
regardless
of
whether
the
loan
was
in
the
taxpayer’s
name
or
not,
and
specifically
even
after
consolidation
with
a
loan
of
the
company’s.
Under
the
authority
of
this
decision,
the
Minister
is
bound
by
that
policy;
and
b.
This
court
is
bound
by
the
doctrine
of
stare
decisis
to
hold
that
this
Appellant
should
be
entitled
to
the
same
treatment
before
the
law
as
was
Mr.
Riddell;
and
as
such,
should
be
entitled
to
make
deductions
for
loans
obtained
on
account
of
the
purchase
of
shares,
regardless
of
whose
name
the
loan
is
in.
Conclusion
25.
It
is
respectfully
submitted
that
the
Appellant
ought
to
be
entitled
to
the
deduction
claimed,
namely
an
interest
expense
of
$160,214
in
the
1994
taxation
year.
The
Appellant
seeks
an
order
directing
the
Ministry
to
allow
the
deduction,
plus
costs
of
this
Appeal.
Counsel
also
referred
to
the
decision
of
the
Supreme
Court
of
Canada
in
Bronfman
Trust
v.
R.
(1987),
87
D.T.C.
5059
(S.C.C.)
and
concluded
that
one
must
look
at
the
commercial
and
economic
reality
of
the
situation
and
that
in
this
appeal
that
reality
was
that
the
Appellant
was
the
borrower
and
that
the
Companies
merely
acted
as
agent.
Respondent’s
submissions
Respondent
submitted
that
there
was
no
borrower/lender
relationship
between
the
bank
and
the
Appellant,
that
the
Appellant
was
merely
a
guarantor
and
that
no
demand
for
payment
had
ever
been
made
upon
her
by
the
bank.
She
also
accentuated
that
the
bank
was
not
a
party
to
the
Loan
Indemnification
Agreement.
Further,
that
because
of
the
Appellant’s
personal
financial
conditions
the
bank
would
not
have
loaned
to
her.
Consequently
the
true
borrowers
were
the
Companies
as
indicated
in
the
loan
documentation.
She
adds
that
the
cases
relied
upon
by
the
Appellant
are
distinguishable.
She
adds
further
that
the
onus
is
on
the
Appellant
to
establish
the
borrower/lender
relationship
and
that
in
case
of
doubt
one
should
find
that
the
Appellant
has
not
discharged
that
onus.
No
agency
agreement
was
presented
to
support
the
allegation
that
the
Companies
acted
as
agents
for
the
Appellant.
Counsel
pointed
out
that,
based
upon
the
Appellant’s
apparent
unawareness
(from
her
testimony)
of
what
was
going
on
she
could
hardly
be
considered
a
principal
in
a
principal
agency
agreement.
Counsel
referred
to
several
cases,
including
those
discussed
below.
In
Denison
Mines
Ltd.
v.
Minister
of
National
Revenue
(1971),
71
D.T.C.
5375
(Fed.
T.D.),
the
Federal
Court
decided
that
no
agency
relationship,
expressed
or
implied,
existed
between
a
company
and
its
wholly
owned
subsidiary
and
denied
the
parent
certain
deductions
of
expenses
actually
incurred
by
the
subsidiary.
In
certain
other
decisions,
notably
a
decision
of
the
Federal
Court
of
Appeal
in
À.
v.
MerBan
Capital
Corp.
(1989),
89
D.T.C.
5404
(Fed.
C.A.),
it
was
held
that
paragraph
20(1)(c)
requires
that
for
interest
to
be
deductible,
it
must
be
paid
on
money
borrowed
by
the
taxpayer
and
not
by
someone
else
such
as
subsidiary
companies.
Counsel
argues
further
that
the
quotation
from
the
Riddell
case
referred
to
above
is
bad
law.
The
Minister
is
not
bound
by
policy
decisions
taken
at
earlier
times
and
she
states
that
that
is
clear
from
the
decision
of
the
Federal
Court
of
Appeal
in
Ludco
Enterprises
Ltd./Entreprises
Ludco
Ltée
v.
R.
(1994),
95
D.T.C.
5311
(Eng.)
(Fed.
C.A.).
Analysis
and
Decision
It
is
clear
that
the
basic
loan
documentation
clearly
indicates
that
the
borrowers
were
the
Companies
and
not
the
Appellant.
However,
in
my
opinion,
the
evidence
establishes
that
with
respect
to
54.6%
of
the
$3.2
million
borrowed
in
1993
the
true
borrower
was
the
Appellant.
This
is
borne
out
by
the
testimony
of
Mr.
Shpak,
the
history
of
the
loans,
the
financial
statements
of
the
companies,
in
particular
those
of
Holdings,
which
showed
that
Holdings
did
not
deduct
interest
on
the
said
54.6%
of
that
loan.
Reference
is
also
made
to
the
resolution
of
Holdings
at
Tab
24
of
Exhibit
A-1,
the
Loan
Indemnification
Agreement
at
Tab
29,
the
ledgers
of
the
Companies
at
Tabs
30
and
31
of
Exhibit
A-1
and
the
working
papers
of
Holdings.
All
these
documents
support
the
testimony
of
Mr.
Shpak
and
lead
to
the
conclusion
that
the
true
borrower
of
54.6%
of
the
$3.2
million
loan
was
the
Appellant.
The
reason
why
the
Companies
were
shown
as
borrowers
of
record
was
to
satisfy
the
Italian
Bank’s
demands
that
it
needed
to
have
direct
security
on
the
assets
of
the
companies
and
not
simply
security
on
the
shares
owned
by
the
Appellant.
54.6%
of
the
$3.2
million
loan
went
to
pay
off
the
First
Italian
Bank
Loan
which
had
provided
the
Appellant
with
the
necessary
funds
to
purchase
the
shares
and
the
loans
receivable.
These
assets
comprise
prop-
erty
which
became
the
major
source
of
income
for
the
Appellant
and
in
my
opinion
the
conditions
of
subsection
20(1)(c)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
are
met.
Even
if
one
was
to
accept
the
Respondent’s
contention
that
no
agency
existed,
which
I
do
not,
the
Loan
Indemnification
Agreement
makes
it
clear
that
at
the
very
least
the
Appellant
was
indebted
to
Holdings
for
54.6%
of
the
$3.2
million
loan.
In
other
words,
if
a
debtor/creditor
relationship
did
not
exist
with
the
Bank
it
did
between
the
Appellant
and
Holdings.
I
should
add
that
I
am
not
relying
on
the
Riddell
decision.
In
other
words,
the
Minister
was
not
bound
by
policy
decisions
of
her
employees.
For
all
of
the
above
reasons,
the
appeal
is
allowed,
with
costs.
Appeal
allowed.