British Columbia Telephone Co. v. Minister of National Revenue, (1992) 139 N.R. 211 (FCA)

• Judge: Pratte, MacGuigan and Desjardins, JJ.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: January 09, 1992
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1992), 139 N.R. 211 (FCA)

B.C. Tel. v. MNR (1992), 139 N.R. 211 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

British Columbia Telephone Co. (appellant/plaintiff) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent/defendant)

(A-390-91)

Indexed As: British Columbia Telephone Co. v. Minister of National Revenue

Federal Court of Appeal

Pratte, MacGuigan and Desjardins, JJ.A.

January 17, 1992.

Summary:

The issue in this case was the proper classification of fibre optic transmission systems in the telecommunications industry for capital cost allowance purposes for 1983.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, in a decision reported at 46 F.T.R. 94, classified the transmission system accord­ingly. The taxpayer appealed.

The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Income Tax - Topic 1198

Income from a business or property - Deductions - Capital cost allowance - Telecommunications equipment - Fibre optic cable - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that fibre optic transmission systems used by the telecommunication industry fell under Schedule II, class 3(j) for capital cost allowance purposes under the Income Tax Act Regulations (i.e., fibre optic transmis­sion systems constituted "wire or cable") - An appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal was dismissed.

Words and Phrases

Wire or cable - The Federal Court of Appeal discussed the meaning of this phrase as it was used in class 3(j) of Schedule II of the Income Tax Act Regu­lations - See paragraphs 5 to 22.

Cases Notice d:

Corning Glass Works v. Canada Wire & Cable Ltd. (1984), 2 C.I.P.R. 77; 81 C.P.R.(2d) 39 (F.C.T.D.), consd. [para. 7].

Sharpe v. Wakefield (1888), 22 Q.B.D. 239 (Eng. C.A.), affd. [1891] A.C. 173 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 9].

Bogoch Seed Co. Ltd. v. C.P.R. and C.N.R., [1963] S.C.R. 247, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Perka, Nelson, Hines and Johnson, [1984] 6 W.W.R. 289; 55 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 9, footnote 5].

Stubart Investments Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 536; [1984] C.T.C. 294; 53 N.R. 241; 84 D.T.C. 6305; 10 D.L.R.(4th) 1, appld. [para. 10].

Lor-Wes Contracting Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue, [1985] 2 C.T.C. 79; [1986] 1 F.C. 346; 60 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 10].

Canterra Energy Ltd. v. Minister of Na­tional Revenue (1986), 71 N.R. 394 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

Cashin v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp. et al., [1988] 3 F.C. 494; 86 N.R. 24; 88 C.L.L.C. 17,019 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

Canada Packers Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Agriculture) et al., [1989] 1 F.C. 47; 87 N.R. 81, refd to. [para. 10].

Nova, An Alberta Corporation v. Minister of National Revenue (1988), 87 N.R. 101, refd to. [para. 10].

Mersey Seafoods Ltd. v. Minister of Na­tional Revenue, [1985] 2 C.T.C. 2485; 85 D.T.C. 731 (T.C.C.), refd to. [para. 11].

Sussex Peerage Case (1844), 8 E.R. 1034, consd. [para. 11].

Canadian Marconi Co. v. Canada (1991), 137 N.R. 15, consd. [para. 11].

Pfizer Co. Ltd. v. Deputy Minister of National Revenue for Customs and Excise, [1977] 1 S.C.R. 456; 6 N.R. 440, refd to. [para. 13].

McIntyre Porcupine Mines Ltd., Re (1921), 49 O.L.R. 214, refd to. [para. 15].

Taylor v. Goodwin (1879), 4 Q.B.D. 228, refd to. [para. 16].

Attorney General v. Edison Telephone Co. of London Ltd. (1880), 6 Q.B.D. 244, refd to. [para. 16].

Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v. McCabe Grain Co. Ltd. (1968), 69 D.L.R.(2d) 313 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Lumberland Inc. v. Nineteen Hundred Tower Ltd., [1977] 1 S.C.R. 581; 10 N.R. 393, refd to. [para. 16].

Case X35 (1990), 90 A.T.C. 316 (A.A.T.), refd to. [para. 16].

Deneault v. Monette (1933), 55 B.R. 111 (Que.), refd to. [para. 16].

Attorney General for British Columbia v. R. (1922), 63 S.C.R. 622, consd. [para. 20].

Smelting Co. of Australia v. Commis­sioners of Inland Revenue, [1897] 1 Q.B. 175, consd. [para. 20].

Johns-Manville Canada Inc. v. Minister of National Revenue (1985), 85 D.T.C. 5373; 60 N.R. 244, refd to. [para. 22, footnote 7].

Statutes Noticed:

Income Tax Act Regulations, Schedule II, Class 3(j)(i) [para. 3]; Class 8(i) [para. 4].

Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-21, sect. 10 [para. 15].

Authors and Works:

Driedger, E.A., Construction of Statutes (2nd Ed. 1983), p. 87 [para. 10].

Maxwell, Interpretation of Statutes (12th Ed.), p. 289 [para. 19].

Webster's Third New Collegiate Diction­ary, [para. 14].

Webster's Third New International Dic­tionary (1976) [para. 14].

Counsel:

W.J.A. Mitchell and K.R. Sharlow, for the appellant;

J.A. Van Iperen and L. Burch, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Thornsteinssons, Vancouver, B.C., for the appellant;

John C. Tait, Q.C., Deputy Attorney Gen­eral of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard in Vancouver, B.C., on January 9, 1992, by Pratte, MacGuigan and Desjardins, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal. The following decision of the court was delivered on January 17, 1992, by MacGuigan, J.A.