Minister of National Revenue v. Seaboard Lumber Sales Co., (1994) 74 F.T.R. 231 (TD)

• Judge: Dubé, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: January 25, 1994
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1994), 74 F.T.R. 231 (TD)

MNR v. Seaboard Lumber Sales Co. (1994), 74 F.T.R. 231 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Her Majesty The Queen (plaintiff) v. Seaboard Lumber Sales Company Ltd. (defendant)

(T-24-93)

Indexed As: Minister of National Revenue v. Seaboard Lumber Sales Co.

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Dubé, J.

February 3, 1994.

Summary:

Seaboard sought a refund of export charges paid on the sale of softwood to Puerto Rico. The Minister of National Revenue disallowed the application and Seaboard appealed to the Canadian International Trade Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the appeal on the ground that the term "United States" did not include Puerto Rico under s. 4(1) of the Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act. The Minister of National Revenue appealed the decision.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, allowed the appeal and held that the term "United States" included Puerto Rico as it was used in s. 4(1) of the Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act.

Forests and Forest Products - Topic 4403

Sale of lumber - Softwood - Softwood export charges - Seaboard exported softwood lumber products to Puerto Rico and paid the charges imposed under the Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act - Seaboard sought a rebate - The Minister disallowed the application and Seaboard appealed to the Canadian International Trade Tribunal - The Tribunal allowed the appeal on the ground that the term "United States" as used in the Act did not include Puerto Rico - The Minister appealed the decision of the Tribunal - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, allowed the appeal and reinstated the Minister's determination.

Statutes - Topic 526

Interpretation - General principles - Consistency with comity of nations or international law - Seaboard and the Minister of National Revenue proceeded by trial de novo over the issue of whether the term "United States" as used in s. 4(1) of the Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act included Puerto Rico - The Minister argued it did and relied on an underlying memorandum of agreement - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, agreed and held that underlying international agreements could be used as an aid when interpreting an ambiguity and that there is a presumption of compatibility between international agreements and their implementing statutes - See paragraphs 7 to 11 and 24 to 31.

Statutes - Topic 9403

Treaty implementation legislation - General principles - Interpretation - [See Statutes - Topic 526 ].

Words and Phrases

United States - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, interpreted this phrase as it was used in s. 4(1) of the Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, R.S.C. 1985 (3rd Supp.), c. 12.

Cases Noticed:

Canadian National Railway Co. and Canadian Pacific Ltd. v. Canada (1993), 62 F.T.R. 150 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 4, footnote 4].

Bloxam v. Favre (1883), 8 P.D. 101 (H.C.J., Prob. Div.), affd. (1884), 9 P.D. 130 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8, footnote 5].

Salomon v. Commissioners of Customs and Excise, [1967] 2 Q.B. 116 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8, footnote 6].

National Corn Growers' Association et al. v. Canadian Import Tribunal, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1324; 114 N.R. 81; 74 D.L.R.(4th) 449, refd to. [para. 11, footnote 12].

Canadian Marconi Co. v. Minister of National Revenue (1991), 137 N.R. 15; 91 D.T.C. 5626 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 12, footnote 14].

British Columbia Telephone Co. v. Minister of National Revenue (1992), 139 N.R. 211; 92 D.T.C. 6129 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 12, footnote 14].

Extendicare Health Services Inc. v. Canada (Minister of National Health and Welfare) (1987), 15 F.T.R. 187; 14 C.E.R. 282 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 12, footnote 14].

Stafford Allen & Sons Ltd. v. Pacific Steam Navigation Co., [1956] 2 All E.R. 716 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13, footnote 16].

Old HW-GW Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue (1993), 153 N.R. 136; 93 D.T.C. 5199 (F.C.A.), revsing. (1991), 43 F.T.R. 197; 91 D.T.C. 5327 (T.D.), dist. [para. 13, footnote 17].

Income Tax Special Purposes Commissioners v. Pemsel, [1891-1894] All E.R. 28 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 14, footnote 19].

Winnipeg (City) v. Morguard Properties Ltd. et al. (1983), 50 N.R. 264; 25 Man.R.(2d) 302; 3 D.L.R.(4th) 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 15, footnote 20].

Johns-Manville Canada Inc. v. Minister of National Revenue (1985), 60 N.R. 244; 85 D.T.C. 5373 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 15, footnote 21].

Downes v. Bidwell (1901), 182 U.S. 244, refd to. [para. 16, footnote 22].

Balzac v. Porto Rico (1922), 258 U.S. 298, refd to. [para. 16, footnote 23].

Tahsis Co. v. Canada, [1979] C.T.C. 410 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 17, footnote 24].

Statutes Noticed:

Canada - United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation, 1988, c. 65, generally [para. 14, footnote 18].

Customs Act, R.S.C. 1985 (2nd Supp.), c. C-1, sect. 2 [para. 14, footnote 18].

Excise Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-15, sect. 81.24, sect. 81.28 [para. 1, footnote 3].

Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 148, Part I, sect. 19(5)(e) [para. 14, footnote 18].

Income Tax Act Regulations (Can.), sect. 5907(10) [para. 20].

Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-21, sect. 35(1) [para. 12, footnote 13].

Meat Import Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. M-3, sect. 4 [para. 14, footnote 18].

Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, R.S.C. 1985 (3rd Supp.), c. 12, sect. 4(1) [para. 3]; sect. 2(3) [para. 6]; sect. 18 [para. 1, footnote 2]; Schedule [para. 17].

State Immunity Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-18, sect. 14(1)(b) [para. 22, footnote 28].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Bernhardt, Encyclopedia of Public International Law (1990), vol. 12, p. 389 [para. 9, footnote 10].

Digest of International Law, U.S. Department of State Publication 8547 (1970), pp. 49 [para. 8, footnote 7]; 397 [para. 8, footnote 8].

Driedger, E.A., Construction of Statutes (2nd Ed. 1983), p. 3 [para. 12, footnote 14].

General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, Basic Instruments and Selected Documents (16th Supp. 1969), p. 6 [para. 9, footnote 9].

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (1991), Supp. 1, General Note 2 [para. 10, footnote 11].

Houghton Mifflin Canadian Dictionary (1982) [para. 12, footnote 15].

Maxwell, Interpretation of Statutes (12th Ed. 1969), p. 183 [para. 8, footnote 5].

Random House Dictionary (2nd Ed. 1987) [para. 12, footnote 15].

Counsel:

John B. Edmond, for the plaintiff;

Werner H.G. Heinrich, for the defendant.

Solicitors of Record:

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

Koffman, Birnie and Kalef, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the defendant.

This matter was heard in Vancouver, British Columbia, on January 25, 1994, before Dubé, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following judgment on February 3, 1994.