Guy
Tremblay
[TRANSLATION]:—This
case
was
heard
at
Sherbrooke,
Quebec
on
February
9,
1977.
1.
Summary
The
Board
must
decide
whether
the
appellant’s
immoveables,
namely
buildings
constructed
partly
from
corrugated
iron,
may
be
depreciated
at
the
5%
or
10%
rate,
in
accordance
with
Class
3
or
Class
6
respectively
of
Schedule
B
to
the
Regulations,
relating
to
paragraph
1100(1)(a)
of
the
Regulations
issued
pursuant
to
the
Income
Tax
Act.
2.
Burden
of
Proof
The
appellant
has
the
burden
of
showing
that
the
respondent’s
assessment
is
unjustified.
This
burden
of
proof
derives
not
from
one
particular
section
of
the
Income
Tax
Act,
but
from
a
number
of
judicial
decisions,
one
of
which
is
the
judgment
delivered
by
the
Supreme
Court
of
Canada
in
R
W
S
Johnston
v
MNR,
[1948]
CTC
195;
3
DTC
1182.
3.
Facts
3.1.
Facts
Alleged
3.1.1.
Facts
Alleged
by
the
Appellant
These
facts
are
contained
in
the
statement
of
facts
and
the
statement
of
reasons
in
support
of
the
appeal,
as
they
appear
in
the
notice
of
appeal:
Statement
of
Facts:
In
his
notification
of
the
27th
day
of
July
1976,
the
Minister
ratified
a
notice
of
reassessment
classifying
a
building
in
Class
3
of
Schedule
B
of
the
Income
Tax
Regulations
for
the
purposes
of
s
20(1)(a)
of
the
Act
and
s
1100(1)(a)
of
the
Income
Tax
Regulations,
although
the
taxpayer
classified
the
said
building*
in
Class
6.
Pursuant
to
this
reclassification,
the
Minister
refused
to
allow
an
amount
of
$27,200.00
claimed
as
a
capital
cost
allowance,
and
allowed
the
amount
of
$13,600.00
for
the
1974
taxation
year.
Statement
of
Reasons
in
Support
of
the
Appeal:
The
appellant
wishes
to
formulate
a
Notice
of
Appeal
against
this
notice
of
reassessment
for
the
following
reasons:
1.
Schedule
B
of
the
Income
Tax
Regulations
clearly
states
that
a
building
of
galvanized
iron
or
corrugated
iron
comes
under
Class
6
unless
included
in
another
class.
2.
The
said
building
has
a
metal
frame
covered
with
corrugated
iron,
which
forms
the
outside
walls.
except
for
part
of
the
front,
namely,
the
part
enclosing
the
offices,
which
is
brick-covered.
3.
By
virtue
of
the
structure
of
the
building
in
question,
as
specified
above,
the
said
building
must
be
classified
in
Class
6
of
Schedule
B
of
the
Income
Tax
Regulations.
3.1.2.
Facts
Alleged
by
the
Respondent
In
his
reply
to
the
notice
of
appeal,
the
respondent
stated
the
facts
as
follows:
1.
He
admitted
the
facts
alleged
under
the
heading
“Statement
of
Facts’’
contained
in
the
Notice
of
Appeal.
2.
He
admitted
none
of
the
facts
alleged
in
the
Notice
of
Appeal
under
the
heading
“Statement
of
Reasons
in
Support
of
the
Appeal’’.
3.
The
respondent
based
his
assessment
of
the
appellant
for
the
latter’s
1974
taxation
year
on
the
fact
inter
alia
that
the
immovable
in
question
was
built
as
follows:
(a)
structure:
the
walls
and
the
roof
are
supported
by
steel
girders;
(b)
one
wall
is
covered
entirely
by
cement
blocks;
(c)
the
other
three
walls
are
two-thirds
covered
by
cement
blocks
(lower
part)
and
one-third
by
corrugated
iron
(upper
part);
(d)
there
is
an
annex
attached
to
one
of
the
walls,
measuring
20’
x
20’
and
40’
high,
completely
covered
with
corrugated
iron;
(e)
the
roof
is
covered
with
corrugated
iron.
3.2.
Facts
Proven
3.2.1.
The
appellant
did
not
call
any
witnesses.
However,
the
respondent
agreed
to
allow
counsel
for
the
appellant
to
submit
the
following
documents
in
evidence:
(a)
the
appellant’s
financial
statements
for
the
years
1973
and
1974,
which
show
that
the
appellant
claimed
a
depreciation
of
10%
on
the
building
at
issue;
(b)
the
plan
of
the
appellant’s
foundry,
with
dimensions
and
component
materials;
(c)
five
photocopies
of
photos
of
the
said
foundry.
3.2.2.
Through
his
witness,
Mr
Léo
Paul
Morin,
an
appraiser,
the
respondent
stated
that
60%
of
the
outside
of
the
principal
building
was
made
of
brick
and
concrete,
15
to
20%
of
fenestration,
and
20
to
25%
of
galvanized
iron.
3.2.3.
This
building
is
supported
on
the
inside
by
a
steel
and
concrete
frame.
3.2.4.
Two
sheds
are
adjacent
to
the
foundry.
The
respondent
admitted
that
the
older
shed,
referred
to
as
shed
No
1,
is
a
“building
of
galvanized
iron’’.
The
respondent
conceded
that,
taken
individually,
it
should
be
included
in
Class
6
and
therefore
subject
to
a
10%
depreciation.
The
Board
must
decide
whether
it
can
be
considered
individually
or
whether
it
must
be
considered
together
with
all
the
other
immoveables.
3.2.5.
The
other
shed,
which
was
built
more
recently,
is
“arch-dome”
shaped,
that
is
consisting
of
a
roof-wall
made
completely
of
steel
and
without
any
frame,
as
shown
in
photo
No
8
of
the
exhibits
filed
as
I-1.
4,
Point
at
Issue
The
question
is
whether
the
two
immoveables,
namely
the
principal
building
and
shed
No
2,
should
be
included
in
Class
3
or
Class
6.
In
order
to
determine
the
appropriate
class,
the
Board
must
decide
whether
the
internal
structure
of
the
building
or
its
external
covering
should
be
considered,
and
also
whether
the
relative
quantity
of
the
materials
can
be
taken
into
consideration.
In
computing
depreciation,
must
buildings
in
the
same
industry
be
considered
together
and
thus
depreciated
according
to
a
single
class,
or
can
each
building
be
considered
separately
and
therefore
depreciated
individually
according
to
its
appropriate
class?
The
fate
of
shed
No
1
may
thus
be
called
into
question.
5.
Act,
Comments,
Judicial
Decisions,
Buildings
5.1.
The
Act
Paragraph
20(1
)(a)
of
the
new
Act
permits
the
deduction
of
a
capital
cost
allowance
as
determined
by
regulation.
In
the
said
regulations,
property
is
divided
by
class.
Since
property
in
Class
3
and
in
Class
6
is
the
point
at
issue
in
the
case
at
bar,
the
property
listed
under
the
said
classes
must
be
cited:
Class
3
(5%)
Property
not
included
in
any
other
class
that
is
(a)
a
building
or
other
structure,
including
component
parts
such
as
electric
wiring,
plumbing,
sprinkler
systems,
air-conditioning
equipment,
heating
equipment,
lighting
fixtures,
elevators
and
escalators,
(b)
a
breakwater
(other
than
a
wooden
breakwater),
(C)
c)
a
dock,
(d)
a
trestle,
(e)
e)
a
windmill,
(f)
a
wharf,
or
(g)
an
addition
or
alteration
made
after
March
31,
1967,
to
a
building
that
would
be
included
in
this
class
but
for
the
fact
that
it
is
included
in
Class
20.
Class
6
(10%)
Property
not
included
in
any
other
class
that
is
(a)
a
building
of
(i)
frame,
(ii)
log,
(iii)
stucco
on
frame,
(iv)
galvanized
iron,
or
(v)
corrugated
iron,
.
construction
including
component
parts
such
as
electric
wiring,
plumbing,
sprinkler
systems,
air-conditioning
equipment,
heating
equipment,
lighting
fixtures,
elevators
and
escalators,
(b)
a
wooden
breakwater,
(c)
a
fence,
(d)
a
greenhouse,
(e)
e)
an
oil
or
water
storage
tank,
(f)
a
railway
tank
car,
(g)
a
wooden
wharf,
(h)
an
aeroplane
hangar
acquired
after
the
end
of
the
taxpayer’s
1958
taxation
year,
or
(i)
an
addition
or
alteration
made
after
March
31,
1967,
to
a
building
that
would
be
included
in
this
class
but
for
the
fact
that
it
is
included
in
Class
20.
5.2.
Comments
and
Judicial
Decisions
In
his
pleading
counsel
for
the
appellant
established,
from
the
dimensions
of
the
materials
given
on
the
plan
submitted
by
the
respondent
and
filed
as
Exhibit
A-2,
that
9,082
square
feet
of
the
outside
covering
of
the
principal
building
is
stonework
and
9,204
square
feet
is
galvanized
iron,
not
including
the
windows.
By
adding
the
galvanized
iron
roof
of
the
principal
building,
counsel
for
the
appellant
arrived
at
a
total
figure
of
36.834
square
feet
for
galvanized
iron
as
compared
with
9,082
square
feet
for
stonework.
As
counsel
for
the
respondent
subsequently
included
the
surface
area
of
the
stone
floor,
which
was
equal
in
area
to
the
roof,
the
final
figures
were
as
follows:
36,834
square
feet
galvanized
iron,
and
36,712
square
feet
stonework.
Counsel
for
the
appellant
stated
that
both
sheds
were
covered
with
galvanized
iron,
which
was
thicker
in
one
case
than
in
the
other.
The
thicker
covering
is
described
as
steel
by
counsel
for
the
respondent.
Both
parties
cited
a
number
of
judicial
decisions.
In
Meraw
v
MNR,
23
Tax
ABC
146:
59
DTC
576,
one-eighth
of
the
walls
of
the
building
were
made
of
wood
and
the
remaining
seveneighths
of
brick.
Class
3,
authorizing
depreciation
at
a
5%
rate,
was
applied
to
this
building.
In
Thistle
Knitwear
Company
Limited
v
MNR,
[1961]
CTC
147;
61
DTC
710,
it
was
shown
that
the
wooden
structure
constituted
92.5%
of
the
wall
whereas
the
brick
covering
constituted
only
7.5%.
Class
6,
authorizing
depreciation
at
a
10%
rate,
was
applied
in
this
case.
In
Thorne’s
Hardware
Ltd
v
MNR,
[1961]
CTC
58:
61
DTC
646,
the
Tax
Appeal
Board
held
that
a
stucco
building
attached
to
a
steel
structure
came
into
the
general
class,
namely
Class
3
at
5%,
as
a
“building
or
other
structure’’.
It
could
not
in
fact
come
under
the
description
of
‘‘a
building
of
stucco
on
frame”,
contained
in
Class
6.
Several
other
cases
were
also
cited
by
the
parties
and
considered
by
the
Board.
Although
several
general
principles
were
stated
in
all
these
judgments,
the
fact
is
that
no
two
of
them
are
identical
and
each
case
Is
sui
generis.
The
Board
must
first
consider
the
literal
meaning
of
the
wording
of
the
Act
and
the
facts
submitted
in
evidence.
In
the
case
at
bar,
before
applying
Class
3(a),
the
general
class
(because
it
covers
any
“building
or
other
structure’’
not
included
in
any
other
class),
we
must
first
ask
whether
Class
6
is
applicable
and,
more
specifically,
whether
the
buildings
in
question
are
“buildings
of
galvanized
iron
or
corrugated
iron’’.
At
the
hearing
both
parties
spoke
of
“tôle
galvanisée’’
and
‘tôle
ondulée’’
without
making
any
distinction
between
them.
In
English
the
terms
are
“galvanized
iron’’
and
“corrugated
iron’’.
These
terms
are
not
defined
in
the
Act
or
in
the
regulations.
The
ordinary
meaning
must
therefore
be
applied.
The
ordinary
meaning
of
the
words
is
given
in
the
dictionaries:
Tôle:
Produit
sidérurgique
plat,
laminé
soit
à
chaud,
soit
à
froid,
à
surface
lisse
ou
présentant
des
saillies.
(Petit
Larousse
Illustré,
1973)
Le
Robert
1970
also
states
that
“tôle”
means:
“feuille
de
fer
ou
d’acier
obtenue
par
laminage.
Grosses
tôles,
tôles
moyennes
minces.
Tôle
étamée,
galvanisée,
émaillée.”
Galvaniser:
Electriser
au
moyen
d’une
pile.
Recouvrir
une
pièce
métallique
d’une
couche
de
zinc
soit
à
chaud,
par
immersion
dans
un
bain
de
zinc
fondu,
soit
à
froid,
par
un
dépôt
électrolytique.
(Petit
Larousse
Illustré,
1973)
Corrugated
iron:
Sheet
iron
or
galvanised
iron,
strengthened
by
being
bent
into
a
series
of
parallel
grooves
and
ridges,
and
often
used
for
roofing.
(The
Living
Webster,
1972)
To
galvanize:
to
subject
to
galvanism;
stimulate
by
or
as
by
electric
current;
to
coat,
as
iron,
with
zinc.
(The
Living
Webster,
1972)
5.3.
Buildings
5.3.1.
Shed
No
1
The
respondent
admitted
the
facts,
as
stated
above,
concerning
one
of
the
three
buildings
involved
in
the
case
at
bar,
namely
shed
No
1.
The
parties
consider
that,
taken
individually,
it
should
be
included
in
Class
6.
However,
the
question
was
raised
in
the
pleadings
whether
all
the
buildings
in
the
same
business
should
be
considered
together
in
order
to
study
their
general
nature
and
classify
them
in
a
single
property
class,
or
whether
each
building
may
be
considered
according
to
its
own
nature
and
placed
in
a
particular
class
irrespective
of
the
other
buildings.
The
Board
is
in
favour
of
the
latter
conclusion.
First,
there
:is
nothing
in
the
Act
or
the
regulations
requiring
us
to
draw
the
former
conclusion.
Furthermore,
the
wording
of
the
legislation
strongly
suggests
that
each
property
should
be
considered
individually.
Regulation
1100
of
Part
XI
of
the
Income
Tax
Regulations
lists
the
classes
and
refers
to
“property
of
each
of
the
.
.
.
classes”
which,
in
the
Board’s
view,
implies
that
each
property
must
be
examined
individually
and
included
in
the
appropriate
class
provided.
The.
opposite
view,
which
entails
considering
all
the
property
of
a
business
in
order
to
determine
the
nature
and
class
best
suited
to
this
property
as
a
whole,
would
lead
to
absurd
conclusions.
There
is
thus
no
justification
for
including
machinery,
a
ship
under
construction
and
a
building
in
the
same
class,
simply
because
these
items
are
the
property
of
a
single
business.
Why
did
the
legislator
make
different
classes
if
not
to
apply
them
to
different
property?
In
the
case
at
bar,
although
the
three
immoveables
belong
to
the
same
business,
the
principle
to
be
applied
remains
the
same.
Each
immoveable
must
be
examined
individually
and
the
appropriate
class
applied
to
it.
Since
it
was
admitted
that
shed
No
1
is
a
galvanized
iron
property,
Class
6
must
apply
to
it
irrespective
of
the
conclusions
regarding
shed
No
2
and
the
principal
building.
5.3.2.
Shed
No
2
The
respondent
contends,
through
his
witness,
that
shed
No
2,
which
is
“arch-dome”
shaped,
is
made
of
steel,
whereas
counsel
for
the
appellant
answered
in
his
pleading
that
the
iron
was
simply
thicker.
No
expert
opinion
regarding
the
nature
of
the
material
concerned
was
submitted
in
evidence.
However,
the
preponderance
of
the
evidence
suggests
that
it
was
steel.
This
was,
in
fact,
the
view
expressed
by
the
only
witness
who
testified
before
the
Court.
The
appellant
should
have
submitted
evidence
in
rebuttal
if
it
was
not
satisfied.
It
had
the
burden
of
proof.
At
this
point
the
term
“steel”
should
be
defined.
The
Petit
Larousse
Illustré
(1973)
defines
steel
as
(TRANSLATION):
“iron
alloy
with
a
small
amount
of
carbon,
obtained
by
smelting
and
capable
of
becoming
very
tough
as
a
result
of
hardening
.
.
.
Soft
steel,
steel
with
a
low
carbon
content
(0.15
to
0.25
per
cent).
Hard
steel,
steel
with
a
high
carbon
content
(0.60
to
0.70
per
cent).”
The
definition
of
steel
given
by
the
Petit
Robert
(1973)
is
similar
(TRANSLATION):
“Alloy
of
iron
and
carbon
(less
than
1.5
per
cent)
which,
through
mechanical
or
thermal
treatment,
is
given
varied
properties
(malleability,
strength).
Soft
steel
(up
to
0.25
per
cent
carbon),
hard
(0.60
to
0.70
per
cent).”
It
can
be
seen
from
these
definitions
that
steel
constitutes
something
more
than
iron.
However,
since
the
Petit
Robert
states
that
“tôle”
(sheet
iron)
can
be
either
of
iron
or
steel,
it
seems
at
first
sight
that
shed
No
2
comes
under
the
description
of
Class
6:
“un
édifice
en
tôle
galvanisée
ou
tôle
ondulée”.
However,
the
Board
must
take
into
account
the
way
in
which
the
same
regulation
is
worded
in
English:
‘a
building
of
galvanized
iron
or
corrugated
iron”.
The
question
is
whether
the
English
word
“iron”
is
defined
in
French
by
“acier”.
Harrap's
Standard
French
and
English
Dictionary
(1970)
gives
“fer”
as
the
French
translation
of
the
English
word
“iron”.
Furthermore,
expressions
such
as
‘raw
iron”
and
“crude
iron”
are
translated
as
“fer
cru”
and
“fer
brut”.
“Soft
iron”
and
“corrugated
iron”
are
given
as
“fer
doux”
and
“tôle
ondulée”
respectively.
The
same
dictionary
translates
the
word
“steel”
by
“acier”.
The>
following
translations
inter
alia
are
also
offered:
“hard
steel”
is
given
as
“acier
dur”
or
“acier
durci”;
“annealed
steel”
as
‘acier
recuit”;
“mild
steel”
as
“acier
doux”;
“rolled
steel”
as
‘‘acier
laminé”;
“cold-rolled
steel”
as
“acier
laminé
à
froid”;
“hot-rolled
steel"
as
“acier
laminé
à
chaud”.
In
view
of
these
definitions,
the
Board
concludes
that
it
must
respect
reality
and,
therefore,
that
it
cannot
interpret
“steel”
as
meaning
iron,
or
“iron”
as
meaning
steel.
It
therefore
seems
that
the
English
wording
“galvanized
iron”
and
“corrugated
iron”
is
in
contradiction
with
the
French
“tôle
galvanisée”
and
“tôle
ondulée”,
since
the
definition
of
the
word
“tôle”
includes
steel.
If
we
accept
the
French
version,
shed
No
2
should
be
included
under
Class
6
and
is
therefore
depreciable
at
a
rate
of
10%.
The
building
of
“tôle”
(steel
sheet)
is
in
fact
included
in
this
class.
If
the
English
version
is
accepted,
shed
No
2
is
included
in
Class
3
and
therefore
depreciable
at
a
rate
of
5%.
As
reference
is
made
only
to
galvanized
iron
and,
as
the
evidence
has
shown,
shed
No
2
was
made
of
steel
sheets,
Class
6
cannot
be
applicable.
It
therefore
comes
under
Class
3—the
general
class—which
refers
to
a
“building
or
other
structure”.
It
is
obvious
that,
with
respect
to
interpretation,
no
responsible
legal
authority
can
allow
a
choice
between
the
English
or
French
versions,
according
to
the
language
of
the
taxpayer.
Only
one
meaning
must
be
admitted
for
both
versions,
which
are
both
official
although
the
English
version
may
have
been
drafted
first.
However,
in
view
of
the
ambiguity
here,
must
the
Board
accept
the
meaning
most
favourable
to
the
taxpayer
or
the
meaning
most
favourable
to
the
taxation
authorities?
In
order
to
answer
that
question,
reference
must
be
made
to
the
general
principles
of
interpretation
of
a
tax
law.
Some
of
the
basic
principles
are
the
following:
1.
As
a
tax
law
is
public
law,
it
must
be
interpreted
restrictively.
2.
A
taxing
section
shall
be
interpreted
restrictively,
in
that
if
it
is
ambiguous
it
shall
be
interpreted
in
the
taxpayer’s
favour.
3.
Once
the
object
of
the
taxation
is
clearly
established,
the
following
principle
shall
apply:
“Taxation
is
the
rule,
and
exemption
the
exception.”
This
principle
gives
rise
to
the
following
one.
4.
An
exemption
section
shall
be
interpreted
restrictively,
in
that
if
it
is
ambiguous
it
shall
be
interpreted
in
favour
of
the
taxation
authorities,
that
is
it
shall
grant
the
minimum
exemption
possible
or
none
at
all.
The
question
is
whether
Regulation
1100(1)(a),
which
includes
Class
6,
is
part
of
taxation
or
exemption
legislation.
At
first
sight
it
seems
to
be
part
of
a
taxation
provision.
What
is,
in
fact,
taxed
in
the
Income
Tax
Act
is
taxable
income,
as
provided
in
section
2
of
the
new
Act.
It
could
be
argued
that
once
the
taxable
income
has
been
clearly
established,
the
following
principle
then
applies:
"Taxation
is
the
rule,
and
exemption
the
exception."
This
principle
would
be
applicable,
therefore,
only
to
exemptions
provided
for
by
the
Act
after
the
taxable
income
has
been
established,
thus
only
in
computing
the
tax
due.
Therefore,
any
amount
above
or
below
the
taxable
income
(whether
this
amount
is
in
the
computation
of
net
income
or
of
taxable
income)
would
be
included
in
the
taxation
section.
In
the
case
at
bar,
deductions
(capital
cost
allowance)
provided
under
Regulation
1100
would
therefore
be
included
in
the
taxation
section.
Should
there
be
any
doubt
regarding
interpretation,
the
benefit
of
the
doubt
should
be
given
to
the
taxpayer,
and
he
should
therefore
be
granted
the
maximum
exemptions
or
deductions
possible.
However,
the
Board
cannot
support
this
line
of
reasoning.
It
would
be
advisable
to
clarify
first
that
"exemption"
does
not
mean
Simply
income
exonerated
from
tax.
It
includes,
rather,
any
amount
which
may
be
allowed
as
a
deduction
either
in
computing
net
income,
in
computing
taxable
income
or
in
computing
tax.
In
the
case
of
the
Income
Tax
Act,
it
means
any
deduction
which
directly
or
indirectly
allows
the
taxpayer
to
pay
less
tax.
In
the
case
at
bar,
capital
cost
allowance
is
obviously
a
deduction
allowed
in
computing
net
income.
Since
the
terms
of
the
legislation
are
ambiguous,
as
explained
above,
strict
interpretation
must
operate
in
favour
of
the
taxation
authorities
and
against
the
taxpayer,
thereby
allowing
him
only
the
minimum
possible
deductions.
The
sense
restricting
the
exemption
must
therefore
be
given
here.
The
word
“tôle"
found
in
the
French
version
must
be
restricted
to
“feuille
de
fer"
(iron
sheet),
or
"galvanized
iron",
which
is
the
term
used
in
the
English
version.
The
evidence
showed
that
since
shed
No
2
was
made
of
steel,
it
cannot
be
included
in
Class
6.
It
therefore
belongs
in
Class
3,
authorizing
only
a
5%
capital
cost
allowance.
The
fate
of
the
principal
building
must
now
be
determined.
5.3.3.
The
Principal
Building
The
preponderance
of
the
evidence
shows
that
the
same
galvanized
iron
which
was
used
to
cover
shed
No
1
was
also
used
to
cover
this
building,
namely
a
thin
covering,
which
was
therefore
in
sheet
form.
It
should
be
noted
that
no
expert
scientific
report
was
given
on
the
nature
of
the
material
used
in
this
case
either.
As
explained
above,
counsel
for
the
appellant
stated
that
36,834
Square
feet
of
this
building
was
composed
of
galvanized
iron
and
9,082
square
feet
of
stonework.
It
should
be
noted
that
he
took
into
account
the
27,630
square
feet
of
the
roof
which
was
made
of
galvanized
iron.
Counsel
for
the
respondent
replied
that
on
the
one
hand
no
account
was
taken
of
the
fenestration
and,
on
the
other
hand,
if
the
galvanized
iron
roof
is
taken
into
consideration,
the
concrete
floor,
the
surface
area
of
which
is—at
27.630
square
feet—equal
to
that
of
the
roof,
must
also
be
taken
into
consideration.
The
final
figures
for
the
surface
areas
are
therefore
found
to
be
36,834
square
feet
galvanized
iron
and
37,712
square
feet
stonework.
Moreover,
the
witness
for
the
respondent
had
explained,
without
taking
the
roof
into
account,
that
the
principal
building
was
constituted
approximately
as
follows:
60%
brick
or
concrete,
15
to
20%
fenestration,
and
20
to
25%
galvanized
iron.
The
Board
prefers
the
appellant’s
calculation,
which
was
based
on
accurate
measurements
of
the
building
even
if
the
fenestration
was
not
taken
into
account.
The
photos
submitted
show
that
the
fenestration
was
located
principally
at
the
level
of
the
concrete
and
brick
walls,
thereby
decreasing
the
area
of
the
concrete.
The
Board
cannot
accept
the
argument
of
counsel
for
the
respondent
that
the
area
of
the
concrete
floor
should
be
added.
The
legislation
in
question
refers
to
a
building
of
galvanized
iron
or
corrugated
iron,
but
the
legislator
did
not
expect
the
floor
to
be
made
of
galvanized
iron,
let
alone
corrugated
iron.
The
Board
must
conclude,
therefore,
that
in
the
case
at
bar
by
far
the
largest
part
of
the
outside
surface
of
the
building
is
made
of
galvanized
iron.
The
Board
must
decide
whether
it
should
consider
only
the
materials
used
in
the
outside
surface
area
of
the
building
or
also
the
internal
frame.
The
evidence
shows
that
the
internal
frame
supporting
the
galvanized
iron
is
made
of
steel.
The
judicial
decisions
cited
considered
primarily
the
materials
which,
with
the
external
covering,
constitute
the
wall.
In
two
cases
(Meraw
v
MNR
and
Thistle
Knitwear
Company
Limited
v
MNR),
the
external
covering
was
of
brick.
The
fact
is
that
no
provision
is
made
for
this
covering
in
the
regulations,
and
the
Court
therefore
had
to
consider
other
component
parts
besides
the
external.
It
therefore
considered
all
the
materials
which,
with
the
bricks,
constituted
the
walls
of
the
building.
In
the
other
case
(Thorne’s
Hardware
Ltd
v
MNR),
the
external
covering
was
stucco.
The
only
case
of
stucco
provided
for
in
the
regulations
is
“stucco
on
frame’’
in
Class
6.
The
legislator
wished
to
limit
enjoyment
of
a
10%
capital
allowance
to
‘‘stucco
on
frame’’.
The
legislator
knew
that
stucco
cannot
stand
up
alone
and
he
wished
to
impose
limits.
However,
he
did
not
impose
limits
on
galvanized
iron.
He
said
simply
“.
.
.
a
building
of
galvanized
iron
or
corrugated
iron”.
However,
the
legislator
also
knew
that
a
building
cannot
be
made
solely
of
galvanized
iron,
particularly
in
iron
sheet
form,
unless
it
is
supported
by
an
internal
frame.
If
the
legislator
did
not
wish
to
limit
the
capital
allowance
of
such
a
building
by
some
internal
frame,
should
the
Board
not
interpret
the
provision
literally
and
consider
only
the
external
covering
referred
to?
The
Board
feels
that
it
should
and
considers
the
appellant’s
principal
building
a
building
of
galvanized
iron
which
comes
under
Class
6,
and
for
which
a
10%
capital
cost
allowance
is
allowed.
6.
Conclusion
The
appeal
is
allowed
in
part,
as
the
principal
building
and
shed
No
1
are
considered
to
be
included
in
Class
6.
Shed
No
2
is
considered
included
in
Class
3.
Appeal
allowed
in
part.
Email this Content