IBM Canada Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue (Customs and Excise) et al., (1991) 129 N.R. 369 (FCA)

• Judge: Heald, Décary and Linden, JJ.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: September 26, 1991
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1991), 129 N.R. 369 (FCA)

IBM Can. Ltd. v. MNR (1991), 129 N.R. 369 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

In the matter of an appeal from a decision of the Tariff Board dated September 14, 1988 pursuant to s. 48 of the Customs Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-40. Between: IBM Canada Ltd. (appellant) and The Deputy Minister Of National Revenue for Customs and Excise (respondent) and Mitel Corp. (intervenant)

(A-984-88)

Indexed As: IBM Canada Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue (Customs and Excise) et al.

Federal Court of Appeal

Heald, Décary and

Linden, JJ.A.

November 4, 1991.

Summary:

An importer appealed a decision of the Tariff Board concerning the classification of certain computerized branch exchanges.

The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Administrative Law - Topic 8925

Boards and tribunals - Powers - Quorum requirements - The Federal Court of Appeal considered the quorum require­ments of boards and tribunals - The court noted that boards were required to strictly comply with quorum requirements at all times - Also, those "who participate in the decision either as members of the majority or as dissenting members [are expected] to act together up to the very last moment which is the making of one united, though not necessarily unanimous, decision" - While the degree of acting together can vary, "at some point in time, the panel must reach a decision collectively and each member must 'participate' individually in that collective decision in agreeing with it or in dissenting from it. There has to be a meeting of the minds, each member being informed ... of the point of view of his colleagues." - See paragraphs 8 to 11.

Administrative Law - Topic 8925

Boards and tribunals - Powers - Quorum requirements - The Tariff Board con­ducted a hearing to establish the tariff classification of certain electronic equip­ment - The first decision issued by the Board contained only the majority opinion (two members) - The parties were told that the judgment of the third member would follow soon - The second decision, issued a week later, included the dissenting opinion of the Board's third member - The importer applied to have the decision quashed on the ground, inter alia, that the Board contravened the quorum requirement contained in s. 6 of the Tariff Board Act in that the dissenting member failed to par­ticipate in the decision - The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - See paragraphs 11 to 19.

Customs - Topic 5218

Classification for duty - Particular goods - Computerized branch exchange (CBX) - IBM Canada Ltd. (successor to Rolm Canada Inc.) imported computerized branch exchanges (CBX's) (models CBX II 9000, CBX II 8000, and VSCBX) that were part of a voice and data business communication system - The Tariff Board classified the CBX's under tariff 44508-1 as electronic telephone apparatus - IBM appealed - IBM submitted that the CBX's should have been classified under 41417-1 as electronic data processing machines or apparatus - IBM claimed that, inter alia, the CBX's should not have been classified as telephone apparatus because "telephone" related to the trans­mission of voice or sounds, not data - The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and classified the CBX's under tariff item 41417-1 as "electronic data processing apparatus and peripherals of such apparatus" - See para­graphs 19 to 32.

Practice - Topic 9030

Appeals - Evidence on appeal - General - An importer appealed a Tariff Board clas­sification on the ground, inter alia, that the Board did not have a quorum when it made its decision - The importer claimed that the dissenting member (who was required for a quorum) did not participate in the decision because his opinion was not filed until a week after the majority's judgment was rendered - The importer cited as evidence the comments of the dissenting member contained in a subse­quent decision by the Board - The Board submitted that the so-called explanation contained in the later decision was inad­missible because it could not be cross-examined or otherwise tested - The Fed­eral Court of Appeal declined to admit the material from the subsequent decision - See paragraphs 14 to 18.

Cases Noticed:

Attorney General of Canada v. Allard, [1982] 2 F.C. 706; 49 N.R. 301 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 8, footnote 8].

Inter-City Freightlines Ltd. et al. v. Swan River-The Pas Transfer Ltd. et al., [1972] 2 W.W.R. 317 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 8, footnote 9].

Lord v. Lord (1855), 5 El. & Bl. 404; 119 E.R. 531, consd. [para. 9, footnote 10].

Beck and Jackson, Re (1857), 1 C.B.(N.S.) 695; 140 E.R. 286, consd. [para. 9, foot­note 10].

Cresswell v. Etobicoke-Mimico Conser-va­tion Authority, [1951] 2 D.L.R. 364 (Ont. C.A.), consd. [para. 9, footnote 10].

Canadian Pacific Transport Co. Ltd. v. Loomis Courier Services Ltd., Re (1976), 72 D.L.R.(3d) 434 (B.C.S.C.), consd. [para. 9, footnote 10].

British Columbia Government Employees Union v. The Public Service Commission (1979), 10 B.C.L.R. 87, consd. [para. 9, footnote 10].

Attorney General of Canada v. P.P.G. Industries Canada Ltd. and Pilkington Brothers (Canada) Ltd., [1976] 2 S.C.R. 739; 7 N.R. 209, refd to. [para. 10].

Tariff Board Act, Re, [1977] 2 F.C. 228; 15 N.R. 361, consd. [para. 11].

Grillas v. Minister of Manpower and Im­migration, [1972] S.C.R. 577, refd to. [para. 13, footnote 15].

Jagenberg of Canada Ltd. v. Deputy Min­ister of National Revenue (Customs and Excise) (1988), 17 C.E.R. 296 (T.B.), refd to. [para. 14, footnote 16].

Société des Acadiens du Nouveau-Bruns­wick Inc. et al. v. Minority Language School Board No. 50 et al., [1986] 1 S.C.R. 549; 66 N.R. 173; 69 N.B.R.(2d) 271: 177 A.P.R. 271; 27 D.L.R.(4th) 406, consd. [para. 16, footnote 17].

Canadian Cable Television Assoc. v. American College Sports Collective of Canada Inc. (1991), 129 N.R. 296 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 16, footnote 17].

Consolidated-Bathurst Packaging Ltd. v. International Woodworkers of America, Local 2-69 and Labour Relations Board (Ont.), [1990] 1 S.C.R. 282; 105 N.R. 161; 38 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 16, footnote 17].

Doyle v. Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, [1985] 1 F.C. 362; 60 N.R. 218; 21 D.L.R.(4th) 366; 7 C.P.R.(3d) 235 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 16, footnote 17].

Kane v. Board of Governors of University of British Columbia, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 1105; [1980] 3 W.W.R. 125; 31 N.R. 214; 110 D.L.R.(3d) 311; 18 B.C.L.R. 124, refd to. [para. 16, footnote 17].

Deere (John) Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue (Customs and Excise) (1990), 107 N.R. 137 (F.C.A.), dist. [para. 20].

Digital Equipment of Canada Ltd. v. Dep­uty Minister of National Revenue (Cus­toms and Excise) (1988), 13 C.E.R. 343 (F.C.A.), dist. [para. 20].

Foxboro Canada Inc. v. Deputy Minister of National Revenue (Customs and Excise) (1987), 12 C.E.R. 118 (F.C.A.), dist. [para. 20].

Ingersoll-Rand Door Hardware Canada Inc. v. Minister of National Revenue (Customs and Excise) (1987), 15 C.E.R. 47; 80 N.R. 397 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 22, footnote 19].

Cardinal v. R., [1980] 1 F.C. 149; [1979] 1 C.N.L.R. 32; 97 D.L.R.(3d) 402 (F.C.), refd to. [para. 23, footnote 21].

R. v. Brislan; Ex parte Williams, [1935] 54 C.L.R. 262 (H.C. of Aust.), refd to. [para. 24, footnote 23].

R. v. Gignac, [1934] O.R. 195 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 24, footnote 23].

Attorney General v. Edison Telephone Co. of London (1880), 6 Q.B. 244 (Ex. D.), refd to. [para. 24, footnote 23].

General Datacomm Ltd. v. Deputy Minis­ter of National Revenue (Customs and Excise) (1983), 9 T.B.R. 78, refd to. [para. 27].

Wang Laboratories (Canada) Ltd. v. Dep­uty Minister of National Revenue (Cus­toms and Excise) (1971), 5 T.B.R. 119, refd to. [para. 27, footnote 24].

Reference/Appeal 1907 (1983), 8 T.B.R. 587, refd to. [para. 27, footnote 24].

Waltham Watch Co. of Canada. v. Deputy Minister of National Revenue (Customs and Excise) (1984), 9 T.B.R. 388, refd to. [para. 27, footnote 24].

Nevco Scoreboard Co. v. Deputy Minister of National Revenue (Customs and Excise) (1986), 12 C.E.R. 88; 11 T.B.R. 342, refd to. [para. 27, footnote 24].

Statutes Noticed:

Tariff Board Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. T-1, sect. 6(1), sect. 6(2) [para. 7].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Beaupré, Interpreting Bilingual Legislation (2nd Ed. 1986), p. 153 [para. 23, foot­note 22].

Dussault and Borgeat, Administrative Law, a Treatise (2nd Ed. 1990), vol. 4, p. 160 [para. 9, footnote 10].

Grand Larousse de la langue française (1971), t. 1, p. 202 [para. 23, footnote 20].

Grand Larousse de la langue française (1978), t. 7, pp. 5909, 5974 [para. 23, foot­note 20].

Lanham, David, The Quorum in Public Law, Public Law (1984), p. 468 [para. 9, footnote 10].

Robert, P., Dictionnaire alphabétique et analogique de la langue française (1972), t. 5, p. 503 [para. 12, footnote 13].

Robert, P., Le Grand Robert de la langue française, Dictionnaire alphabétique et analogique de la langue française (2nd Ed. 1986), t. I, pp. 453-454; t. IX, pp. 115-116, 204-205 [para. 23, foot­note 20].

Counsel:

Richard Dearden, for IBM Canada Ltd.;

Michael Ciavaglia, for the Minister.

Solicitors of Record:

Gowling, Strathy & Henderson, Ottawa, Ontario, for IBM Canada Ltd.;

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

This appeal was heard on September 26, 1991, in Ottawa, Ontario, by Décary, Heald and Linden, JJ.A., of The Federal Court of Appeal. The decision of the court was delivered on November 4, 1991, by Décary, J.A.