TASCHEREAU,
J.:—In
February,
1948,
the
appellant
duly
filed
an
Income
and
Excess
Profits
Tax
return
for
the
1947
taxation
year,
but
failed
to
show
any
excess
profits
tax
payable.
The
con-
tention
is
based
on
Section
3
of
the
Excess
Profits
Tax
Act,
which
is
to
the
effect
that
a
company
is
exempt
from
tax
during
its
first
year
of
operation,
provided
(a)
it
carried
on
a
substantially
new
business
with
substantially
new
assets,
(b)
has
started
business
after
June
26th,
1944,
unless
it
continued
a
previous
business,
and
(c)
some
person
or
persons
had
a
‘‘substantial
interest”
both
in
the
previous
and
in
the
new
business.
It
is
common
ground
that
the
appellant
first
began
business
in
1947,
year
of
its
incorporation,
that
it
continued
a
previous
business,
and
it
is
also
conceded
that
the
Mannings
who
owned
nearly
all
the
shares
of
the
previous
business,
held
49%
of
the
shares
of
the
new
company.
The
only
point
in
issue
is
therefore
whether
a
49%
interest
is
a
‘‘substantial
interest’’,
within
the
meaning
of
the
Excess
Profits
Tax
Act.
The
appellant
was
assessed
in
the
sum
of
$29,458.78
and
his
appeals
to
the
Minister
as
well
as
to
the
Exchequer
Court
were
dismissed.
The
Honourable
Sydney
Smith,
Deputy
Judge,
declined
to
accept
the
argument
that
‘‘substantial
interest’’
meant
“majority”
or
‘‘controlling
interest’’.
I
think
that
this
judgment
is
clearly
right.
The
word
“substantial”
has
a
number
of
quite
different
senses,
all
depending
on
the
context
in
which
it
is
used.
In
the
present
case,
I
agree
with
the
submission
of
the
respondent,
that
the
only
possible
meaning
that
it
can
be
given
is
“large
quantity’’,
‘‘considerable
amount
of
shares’’.
When
Parliament
intended
to
deal
with
the
standard
profits
of
certain
controlled
companies,
it
used
the
words
‘‘a
controlling
interest’’,
as
it
did
in
section
15a.
Moreover,
in
the
French
version
of
Section
3,
which
must
be
read
with
the
English
one
(Authors
&
Publishers
v.
Western
Fair,
[1951]
S.C.R.
596),
the
translation
for
‘‘substantial’’
is
‘‘important’’.
The
appeal
fails
and
should
be
dismissed
with
costs.
CARTWRIGHT,
J.:—The
appellant
contends
that
in
the
phrase
‘‘a
person
or
persons
who
has
or
have
a
substantial
interest
in
the
business
either
by
ownership
of
shares
in
the
corporation
or
Joint
stock
company
that
operates
the
business
or
otherwise,’’
used
in
Section
3
of
the
Excess
Profits
Tax
Act
as
amended,
the
words
‘‘a
substantial
interest”
mean
‘‘a
controlling
interest’’,
and
therefore
in
the
case
of
a
joint
stock
company,
which
the
appellant
is,
‘more
than
half
of
the
issued
shares’’.
I
am
unable
to
accept
this
contention.
I
do
not
think
that
in
their
ordinary
meaning
the
words
‘‘substantial
interest’’
are
synonymous
with
the
words
“controlling
interest’’,
and
that
Parliament
did
not
intend
so
to
use
them
is
indicated
by
the
fact
that
the
latter
words
are
used
elsewhere
in
the
same
statute.
I
agree
with
the
view
of
the
learned
Deputy
Judge
that
in
this
case
the
ownership
of
49%
of
the
shares
of
the
appellant
constituted
a
substantial
interest
within
the
meaning
of
the
words
in
section
3
quoted
above.
I
would
dismiss
the
appeal
with
costs.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content