Date:
20070108
Docket: A-121-06
Citation: 2007 FCA 15
CORAM: NADON J.A.
SEXTON J.A.
SHARLOW J.A.
BETWEEN:
713460 ONTARIO LTD. o/a
HEIRLOOM CLOCK COMPANY
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Heard at Toronto,
Ontario, on January 8,
2007.
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on January 8, 2007.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: SEXTON
J.A.
Date:
20070108
Docket: A-121-06
Citation: 2007
FCA 15
CORAM: NADON
J.A.
SEXTON
J.A.
SHARLOW
J.A.
BETWEEN:
713460 ONTARIO LTD. o/a
HEIRLOOM CLOCK COMPANY
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY
THE QUEEN
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE
COURT
(Delivered
from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on January 8,
2007)
SEXTON J.A.
[1]
This
is an appeal by 712460 Ontario Ltd. o/a Heirloom Clock Company from a decision
of the Honourable Mr. Justice Blanchard dated February 23, 2006.
[2]
The
appellant states that the trial judge erred by concluding that it manufactures
grandfather clocks within the meaning of the ExciseTax Act (the “ETA”),
and is required therefore to pay excise tax in respect of those grandfather
clocks.
[3]
When
a customer orders a grandfather clock, the appellant installs the mechanism and
the dial in each clock cabinet before shipping them, but does not install the
pendulum or weights before shipment thus requiring the buyer to install them
upon delivery. The appellant therefore says that it has not manufactured and
shipped a grandfather clock.
[4]
The
Minister of National Revenue (the “Minister”) considers that the appellant is
required, pursuant to subsection 23(1) and para (f) of the definition of
“manufacturer or producer” in subsection 2(1) of the ETA, to pay excise
tax in respect of the clocks.
[5]
The
appellant appealed the Minister’s assessment to the Canadian International
Trade Tribunal (the “CITT”) pursuant to section 81.19 of the ETA. On
August 13, 2004, the CITT allowed the appeal and reversed the Minister’s
assessment of the excise taxes against the appellant.
[6]
The
CITT essentially stated that since the primary function of a clock is to keep
time, the appellant had to render its grandfather clocks functional by
installing all the components in the clock cabinet in order to be considered as
the person who manufactures the grandfather clocks.
[7]
The
Crown appealed the CITT’s decision. On February 24, 2006, the Federal Court
allowed the appeal and ordered the appellant to pay to the Crown the sum owing
in excise taxes plus penalty and interest.
[8]
Based
on the record we are of the view that the product manufactured and sold by the
appellant was a grandfather clock. It is true that for the clock to work it
would be necessary to install the weights and the pendulum after delivery.
However this requires little skill and effort.
[9]
In
conclusion, we agree with the trial judge that the appellant must be considered
a manufacturer of grandfather clocks within the meaning of section 23(1) of the
ETA and thus is required to remit unpaid excise taxes to the Crown.
[10]
In
view of our conclusion, it is unnecessary to consider the application of
section 23(11) which, as a deeming section, applies only if section 23(1) has
not otherwise been satisfied.
[11]
For
these reasons and despite the able submissions of Mr. Eickmeier on behalf of
the Appellant the appeal is dismissed with costs.
“J. Edgar Sexton”
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
DOCKET: A-121-06
STYLE OF CAUSE: 713460 ontario ltd. o/a HEIRLOOM
CLOCK
COMPANY
Appellant
and
HER
MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
DATE OF HEARING: January 8, 2007
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
OF THE COURT BY: (NADON, SEXTON & SHARLOW JJ.A.)
DELIVERED FROM THE
BENCH BY: SEXTON J.a.
APPEARANCES
BY:
PETER
EICKMEIER FOR THE
Appellant
MARIE CROWLEY For the Respondent
SOLICITORS
OF RECORD:
PETER
EICKMEIER
Grimsby, Ontario for
the appellant
John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada FOR THE RESPONDENT
Email this Content