The
judgment
of
the
court
was
delivered
by
Isaac
CJ.
(orally):
This
is
an
appeal
from
a
judgment
of
the
Trial
Division,
dated
4
November,
1994,
dismissing
an
action
by
the
appellant
by
way
of
an
appeal
de
novo
from
a
judgment
of
the
Tax
Court,
dated
18
October,
1988
[(1989)
D.T.C.
663].
In
the
latter
judgment
the
Tax
Court
dismissed
the
appellant’s
appeal
against
a
reassessment
by
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
(the
“Minister”)
which
disallowed
the
appellant’s
claim
to
a
residence
deduction
pursuant
to
paragraph
8(1)(c)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act,
S.C.
1970-71-72,
c.
63
as
amended
(the
“Act”)
for
the
taxation
year
1986.
In
1986,
the
appellant
was
President
of
the
Ontario
Bible
College
(OBC)
and
the
Ontario
Theological
Seminary
(OTS).
For
that
year
he
claimed
a
deduction
in
the
amount
of
$13,500.00
for
income
tax
purposes
as
a
residence
allowance
pursuant
to
paragraph
8(1)(c)
of
the
Act.
That
paragraph
reads:
8.(1)
Deductions
allowed.
—
In
computing
a
taxpayer’s
income
for
a
taxation
year
from
an
office
or
employment,
there
may
be
deducted
such
of
the
following
amounts
as
are
wholly
applicable
to
that
source
or
such
part
of
the
following
amounts
as
may
reasonably
be
regarded
as
applicable
thereto:
(c)
clergyman’s
residence.
—
where
the
taxpayer
is
a
member
of
the
clergy
or
of
a
religious
order
or
a
regular
minister
of
a
religious
denomination,
and
is
in
charge
of,
or
ministering
to
a
diocese,
parish
or
congregation,
or
engaged
exclusively
in
full-time
administrative
service
by
appointment
of
a
religious
order
or
religious
denomination,
an
amount
equal
to
(i)
the
value
of
the
residence
or
other
living
accommodation
occupied
by
him
in
the
course
of
or
by
virtue
of
his
office
or
employment
as
such
member
or
minister
so
in
charge
of
or
ministering
to
a
diocese,
parish
or
congregation,
or
so
engaged
in
such
administrative
service,
to
the
extent
that
such
value
is
included
in
computing
his
income
for
the
year
by
virtue
of
section
6,
or
(ii)
rent
paid
by
him
for
a
residence
or
other
living
accommodation
rented
and
occupied
by
him,
or
the
fair
rental
value
of
a
residence
or
other
living
accommodation
owned
and
occupied
by
him,
during
the
year
but
not,
in
either
case,
exceeding
his
remuneration
from
his
office
or
employment
as
described
in
subparagraph
(i);
The
Minister
disallowed
the
claim
and
the
appellant
appealed
to
the
Tax
Court
which
dismissed
his
appeal
and
confirmed
the
Minister’s
reassessment.
On
further
appeal
to
the
Trial
Division,
the
appellant
contended
that
as
a
senior
officer
and
President
of
OBC
and
a
person
who
had
signed
the
Statement
of
Faith
of
the
College,
he
was
a
member
of
a
religious
order,
namely
the
OBC,
and
was
engaged
exclusively
in
full-time
administrative
service
by
appointment
of
the
order.
The
appellant
contended
further
that
he
qualified
for
the
deduction
as
a
member
of
a
religious
order
or
as
a
regular
minister,
ministering
to
a
congregation,
composed
of
the
students,
faculty,
senior
officers
and
staff
of
the
OBC.
The
learned
Trial
Judge
found
that
the
appellant
was
not
a
member
of
a
religious
order
by
reason
of
his
office
and
his
membership
in
OBC
since
that
organization
was
not
a
religious
order,
within
the
meaning
of
paragraph
8(l)(c),
of
the
Act.
Without
determining
whether
the
appellant
was
a
regular
minister
within
the
terms
of
that
provision,
but
assuming
for
the
purpose
of
the
case
that
he
was,
the
Trial
Judge
also
found
that
the
appellant
was
not
“a
regular
minister
in
charge
of
or
ministering
to
a
congregation”.
He
also
found
that
since
OBC
was
not
a
religious
order,
the
appellant
was
not
engaged,
by
reason
of
his
office
at
OBC,
in
full-time
administrative
service
by
appointment
of
a
religious
order.
The
Trial
Judge
therefore
concluded
that
the
appellant
had
not
disproved
to
the
requisite
degree
the
assumptions
of
fact
upon
which
the
Minister
based
his
assessment
on
tax
for
the
1986
taxation
year
and
he
dismissed
the
appellant’s
action
with
costs.
The
Trial
Judge
supported
his
conclusions
by
thorough
and
careful
reasons.
In
the
appeal
before
us,
the
appellant
raised
objections
to
each
of
the
findings
of
the
Trial
Judge
except
his
conclusion,
in
obiter,
that
the
appellant
was
a
“regular
minister
of
a
religious
denomination”.
For
her
part,
the
respondent
takes
issue
with
the
conclusion
that
the
appellant
was
a
regular
minister
of
a
religious
denomination.
We
do
not
find
it
necessary
to
call
upon
the
respondent
for
argument
since
we
are
all
of
the
view
that
the
Trial
Judge
was
right
in
concluding
that,
on
the
facts
of
this
case,
the
appellant
was
not
entitled
to
the
deduction
claimed
and
we
are
in
substantial
agreement
with
his
reasons.
Having
said
that,
we
express
no
opinion
respecting
the
correctness
of
his
conclusion
that
the
appellant
was
a
regular
minister
of
a
religious
denomination,
because
that
conclusion
was
not
necessary
for
his
decision.
By
order
of
Stone
J.A.
The
Canadian
Council
of
Christian
Charities,
the
Evangelical
Fellowship
of
Canada
and
The
Interdenominational
Foreign
Mission
Association
of
Canada
were
added
as
Intervenors.
The
Intervenors
filed
a
memorandum
of
fact
and
law
and
were
represented
by
counsel
who
participated
in
oral
argument
respecting
various
concerns
which
were
said
to
arise
from
the
reasons
of
the
Trial
Judge.
Despite
the
skilful
and
careful
argument
of
counsel
for
the
Intervenors,
we
are
all
of
the
view
that
those
concerns
cannot
be
said
to
arise
from
a
fair
reading
of
the
reasons
of
the
Trial
Judge
in
their
entirety.
It
is
clear
to
us
that
the
Trial
Judge
did
not
purport
to
lay
down
detailed
definitions
of
the
words
and
phrases
in
paragraph
8(l)(c)
applicable
in
all
cases.
Indeed,
in
our
view
the
Trial
Judge
interpreted
paragraph
8(l)(c)
and
applied
that
interpretation
correctly
to
the
facts
of
this
particular
case.
For
these
reasons,
the
appeal
will
be
dismissed
with
costs
and
the
reassessment
of
the
Minister
confirmed.
There
will
be
no
costs
for
or
against
the
Intervenors.
Appeal
dismissed.