RINFRET
J.:—Mr.
Russell,
the
Court
has
come
to
the
conclusion
that
it
will
not
be
necessary
to
hear
you.
We
are
unanimously
of
the
opinion
that
the
present
case
cannot
be
distinguished
in
principle
from
the
decision
of
the
Privy
Council
in
the
Birtwistle
case
(Minister
of
Nat
f
l
Revenue
v.
Trusts
&
Guar.
Co.),
[1939]
4
D.L.R.
417,
[1940]
A.C.
138.
We
think
that
the
two
points
submitted
by
Mr.
Walker
were
covered
by
the
decision
in
that
case;
and
that
concludes
the
question
so
far
as
we
are
concerned.
I
must
add,
perhaps,
that
this
is
no
disparagement
of
the
argument
of
Mr.
Walker.
He
certainly
made
the
best
of
his
case.
It
should
not
be
forgotten
that
when
the
same
points
were
argued
before
this
Court
in
the
Birtwistle
case,
[1939]
1
D.L.R.
365,
S.C.R.
125,
before
it
went
to
the
Privy
Council,
four
of
our
learned.
brothers
were
of
the
‘same
opinion
as
that
put
forward
by
counsel
for
the
appellants
in
the
present
case.
But
now
that
the
Privy
Couneil
has
given
its
decision,
we
are
bound
by
it,
and
that
concludes
the
matter.
The
appeal,
therefore,
will
be
dismissed
with
costs.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content