Date:
20070621
Docket: A-264-06
Citation: 2007 FCA 246
CORAM: LINDEN J.A.
PELLETIER
J.A.
RYER J.A.
BETWEEN:
3319067
CANADA INC. (UNIVERSAL LITES)
Appellant
and
PRESIDENT
OF THE CANADA BORDER SERVICES AGENCY
Respondent
Heard at Ottawa,
Ontario, on June 21, 2007.
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, on June 21, 2007.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: PELLETIER
J.A.
Date:
20070621
Docket: A-264-06
Citation: 2007
FCA 246
CORAM: LINDEN J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
RYER
J.A.
BETWEEN:
3319067
CANADA INC. (UNIVERSAL LITES)
Appellant
and
PRESIDENT OF
THE CANADA BORDER SERVICES AGENCY
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE
COURT
(Delivered
from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, on June 21, 2007)
PELLETIER
J.A.
[1]
Both
parties are agreed that the standard of review applicable to the Tribunal's
decision is that of reasonableness. In Canada (Director of Investigation and Research,
Competition Act) v. Southam Inc., [1997] 1 S.R.C. 748, at paragraph 56, the Supreme Court of
Canada held that a decision was reasonable if "any reasons support it".
[2]
In this
case, the crux of the Tribunal's decision is its conclusion that the goods in
question are "electric garlands". The basis for that conclusion is an
amalgam of two lines of reasoning. The first is that the goods should fall in
the same classification as electric garlands and specialized lights "both
of which they closely resemble" (Tribunal Reasons, at paragraph 42). The
second is the conclusion that the goods come within the definition of "electric
garlands" because of the phrase "of all kinds" as it appears in
Explanatory Note (B)(f) to heading 95.05 (Tribunal Reasons, at paragraph 43).
While this last conclusion is not necessarily obvious, it must be read in
context.
[3]
In coming
to that conclusion, the Tribunal referred to the definition of "garland"
in the Gage Canadian Dictionary which includes, as a secondary definition of
garland, "something like a garland". While the Tribunal did not refer
to the secondary meaning, we infer from its conclusion that it incorporated it
into its reasoning. In the circumstances, the Tribunal's conclusion was
supported by the evidence before it and is therefore not unreasonable.
[4]
The appeal
should therefore be dismissed with costs.
"J.D.
Denis Pelletier"
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-264-06
STYLE OF CAUSE: 3319067 CANADA INC.
(UNIVERSAL LITES) and PRESIDENT OF THE CANADA BORDER SERVICES AGENCY
PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: June 21, 2007
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: Linden, Pelletier,
Ryer JJ.A.
RENDERED FROM THE BENCH BY: Pelletier J.A.
APPEARANCES:
|
Michael Kaylor
|
For the Appellant
|
|
Elizabeth
Kikuchi
|
For the Respondent
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
Lapointe Rosenstein
Montréal, Quebec
|
For the
Appellant
|
|
John Sims,
Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
|
For the
Respondent
|
Email this Content