[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
95-3139(GST)I
BETWEEN:
DISTRIBUTION LÉVESQUE VENDING (1986)
LTÉE,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
Motion heard on April 15, 1998, at Québec,
Quebec, by
the Honourable Judge Guy Tremblay
Appearances
Counsel for the
Appellant:
Gaétan Drolet
Counsel for the
Respondent:
Michel Morel
ORDER
The
respondent's motion is allowed and the conclusion of the
judgment dated April 22, 1997, should read "the
appeal is allowed without costs" in accordance with the
attached Reasons for Order.
Signed at Québec, Quebec, on April 27, 1998.
J.T.C.C.
Translation certified true
on this 11th day of June 2003.
Sophie Debbané, Revisor
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
Date: 19980427
Docket: 95-3139(GST)I
BETWEEN:
DISTRIBUTION LÉVESQUE VENDING (1986)
LTÉE,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent/
Applicant.
REASONS FOR ORDER
Guy Tremblay, J.T.C.C.
[1] The issue is whether, in the
judgment rendered in the above case, the appeal must be allowed
with or without costs.
[2] The applicant submitted that her
assessment under appeal was for $59,320.27 in goods and services
tax.
[3] On April 22, 1997, the Court
allowed the appeal with costs.
[4] The applicant submitted that the
appeal must be allowed without costs.
[5] In the main action, the appellant
had chosen to proceed under the informal procedure provided for
in section 18 of the Tax Court of Canada Act
(R.S.C. 1985, c. T-2) (the Act).
[6] Subsection 18.3009(1) of the
Act reads as follows:
18.3009(1) Where an appeal referred to in
section 18.3001 is allowed and the judgment reduces the
amount of tax, net tax, rebate, interest and penalty in issue in
the appeal by more than one-half, the Court may award
costs, in accordance with the rules of Court, to the person who
brought the appeal where
(a) the amount in dispute was equal to or less than
$7,000; and
(b) the aggregate of supplies for the prior fiscal year
of that person was equal to or less than $1,000,000.
[7] Counsel for the appellant argued
that the substantial evidence that had to be adduced (expert
evidence, etc.) and the disposition of this case had the effect
of resolving dozens of appeals of the same nature across
Canada.
[8] The Court is aware of the work
completed by the parties. However, since the appellant chose the
informal procedure, it made its own bed. Where a case has
proceeded under the informal procedure, this procedure continues
to apply until costs have been dealt with.
[9] Subsection 18.3009(1) of the
Act applies in full. The amount of $59,320.27 is an amount
that exceeds $7,000.
Conclusion
[10] The respondent's motion is allowed
and the conclusion of the judgment dated
April 22, 1997, should read "the appeal is allowed
without costs".
Signed at Québec, Quebec, on April 27, 1998.
J.T.C.C.
Translation certified true
on this 11th day of June 2003.
Sophie Debbané, Revisor
Email this Content