Date: 19990226
Dockets: 96-1489-IT-G; 96-1491-IT-G; 96-1484-IT-G; 96-1486-IT-G; 96-1487-IT-G; 96-1488-IT-G; 96-1483-IT-G; 96-1490-IT-G; 96-1492-IT-G; 96-1474-IT-G; 96-1875-IT-G; 96-1878-IT-G; 96-1879-IT-G; 96-1868-IT-G; 96-1877-IT-G; 96-1871-IT-G; 96-2281-IT-G; 96-1870-IT-G; 97-2477-IT-G; 96-1425-IT-G; 96-1880-IT-G; 96-2282-IT-G; 96-2284-IT-G; 96-2279-IT-G; 95-2718-IT-G; 96-1881-IT-G; 95-2722-IT-G
BETWEEN:
MICHAEL ALEMU (96-1489-IT-G), CARMEN CHEVALIER (96-1491-IT-G), WILFRED EAGLESON (96-1484-IT-G), LANCELOT LEACH (96-1486-IT-G), MURRAY MacKENZIE (96-1487-IT-G), HERBERT ROBBINS (96-1488-IT-G), MARY ROBERTS (96-1483-IT-G), DOUGLAS SEWELL (96-1490-IT-G), GARY WEBER (96-1492-IT-G), MICHAEL CONDRAN (96-1474-IT-G), NOEL A. CHURCHMAN (96-1875-IT-G), SHARON DAM (96-1878-IT-G), ROBERT B. GRIMES (96-1879-IT-G), KATHERINE S. LOVEYS (96-1868-IT-G), ED SIDER (96-1877-IT-G), LEE MITCHELL (96-1871-IT-G), M. WAYNE MICHALSKI (96-2281-IT-G), DONOVAN E. JANZEN (96-1870-IT-G), (97-2477-IT-G), ARTHUR H. RASMUSSON (96-1425-IT-G), LE RÉVÉREND J. ALLAN SHANTZ (96-1880-IT-G), MARTHA MARR (96-2282-IT-G), IRENE MOORE (96-2284-IT-G), ELISABETH NOWAK (96-2279-IT-G), ANITA STEIGINGA (95-2718-IT-G), (96-1881-IT-G) et BARRY CRAWFORD (95-2722-IT-G),
Appellants,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
Reasons for judgment
Bowman, J.T.C.C.
[1] This group of cases was part of a series of cases heard in the spring, summer and fall of 1998 having to do with claims under paragraph 8(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The central issue in this group of cases is whether an organization known as Christian Horizons is a "religious order" within the meaning of that provision and, if so, whether the appellants are members of that order.
[2] A second issue, which arises in the case of Reverend Churchman and Reverend Shantz, is whether these two persons, who, it is conceded, are clergymen, are ministering to or in charge of a congregation. So far as Reverend Churchman is concerned it is also conceded that he is engaged in full time administrative service. Accordingly if it is determined that he has been appointed to that service by a religious order, the question whether he is in charge of or ministering to a congregation need not be considered.
[3] Of the other appellants in this group, it is conceded that Murray MacKenzie, Donovan E. Janzen and Ed Sider were engaged exclusively in full time administrative service. The function of the others remains in issue, although it is conceded that "each of the appellants that was employed by Christian Horizons had, as part of their job description, duties that were administrative in nature, but it is not accepted that their duties were exclusively administrative in nature."
[4] I shall turn first to the issue that is central to all of the appeals, whether Christian Horizons is a religious order.
[5] Christian Horizons was incorporated in 1965 under the name Ontario Christian Association for Exceptional Children as a non-profit corporation without share capital under the Corporations Act (Ontario) and at all material times was a registered charity under the Income Tax Act. Subsequently, it changed its name to Christian Horizons. Its corporate objects are as follows:
(a) To search out and provide information relevant to understanding and helping the exceptional child; to assist the exceptional child in finding a satisfying and purposeful place in society; to promote the physical, social, intellectual and spiritual welfare of the exceptional child; to provide Christian fellowship for parents and other persons interested in the welfare of the exceptional child; to encourage and assist interested churches in the development of a special Christian education programme for the exceptional child; to promote the establishment of programme of specialized facilities such as clinics, camps, schools, retreats and homes for developing the full potential of the exceptional child and preparing him to lead a happy, meaningful and useful life; and
(b) Subject to The Charitable Gifts Act and the Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act, to receive subscriptions and donations for the purpose of securing funds to carry on the work of the Corporation.
[6] "Exceptional" in these letters patent means mentally handicapped or, to use a term that was used by many of the witnesses and is more sensitive and acceptable today, developmentally challenged.
[7] Christian Horizons describes itself as a "trans-denominational evangelical ministry serving people with exceptional needs". By trans-denominational is meant that it is affiliated with no denomination, as compared to "inter-denominational" which indicates an affiliation with a number of denominations.
[8] Its mission statement, as set out in the pamphlet "Presenting Christian Horizons" is as follows:
|
MISSION STATEMENT |
As Christians committed to the doctrinal statement of Christian Horizons, we seek to address our objectives as articulated at incorporation by:
1. Mobilizing the Evangelical Christian Community to provide for the needs of people who, due to their unique development, require extraordinary support/care.
2. Meeting the needs of people (unserved in the community or transferring from centralized facilities) who request our help either by themselves or through a representative.
3. Providing service and care in meeting the needs of developmentally disabled people that honours Jesus Christ, exhibiting His care and integrity.
[9] Its objectives are said to be the following:
|
OBJECTIVES |
1. CHRISTIAN Fellowship for parents, persons, interested in the advancement and welfare of the person with exceptional needs.
2. Research and providing relevant information assisting the mentally disabled person.
3. Assist persons to find a satisfying and purposeful place in society.
4. Promoting the enhancement of all persons, physically, socially, mentally and spiritually.
5. Assisting churches in developing special educational programs.
6. Establishing, programming within specialized facilities, group homes, camps, schools to help each person have a happy meaningful life.
[10] The brochure also invites parents, individuals and churches to become members of Christian Horizons. To become a member one must complete a membership application and forward a membership fee.
[11] Persons wishing to become members are required to subscribe to the following doctrinal statement:
|
DOCTRINAL STATEMENT |
As Christians, possessing a personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, we wish to further the aims of Christian Horizons in a true spirit of Love and compassion, combined with a genuine concern for the needs of those whom we will serve seeking to do all for the glory of God. The members of Christian Horizons subscribe to the following doctrinal statement:
1. The Holy Scriptures as originally given by God are divinely inspired, infallible, entirely trustworthy and the only supreme authority in all matters of faith and conduct.
2. One God eternally existent in three Persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
3. Our Lord Jesus Christ, God manifest in the flesh – His virgin birth, His sinless human life, His bodily resurrection, His divine miracles, His ascension, His mediatorial work, and His personal return in power and glory.
4. The salvation of lost and sinful man through the shed blood of the Lord Jesus Christ and regeneration by the Holy Spirit by faith apart from works.
5. The Holy Spirit by whose indwelling the believer is enabled to live a holy life to witness and work for the Lord Jesus Christ.
6. The resurrection of both the saved and the lost; they that are saved unto the resurrection of Life, and they that are lost unto the resurrection of damnation.
7. The unity of spirit of all true believers, the Church, the Body of Christ.
[12] I mention these "corporate" members of which there are about 850 because there is an issue concerning who is a member of Christian Horizons. The position of the appellants is that they, as employees of Christian Horizons, are "members" of a religious order, within the meaning of paragraph 8(1)(c). None of the corporate members is claiming the deduction under paragraph 8(1)(c) as members of a religious order, Christian Horizons. This question will be dealt with later.
[13] At the present time Christian Horizons operates about 115 group homes ("Horizon Houses") throughout Ontario, where the needs of about 850 developmentally challenged adults and children are served. It also provides support and assistance to persons who are capable of living independently, with staff support, in an apartment setting. It also provides vocational habitation services and operates a summer camp in southern Ontario for developmentally challenged children.
[14] The operation of Horizons Houses appears to be the largest aspect of the organization's operations. Its current budget is about $36,000,000 of which about $1,000,000 comes from donations and membership fees from supporting individuals, churches and organizations and the balance from the Ontario Ministry of Community and Social Services. In some cases a fee is charged out of the individual's family benefit allowance.
[15] Christian Horizons has about 1,500 staff members, most of whom are engaged in direct care and not in administration.
[16] All staff members are required to subscribe to the doctrinal statement set out above. In addition, as part of the employment contract signed by Christian Horizons as employer and the employee, the employee must agree to adhere to the following moral, religious and lifestyle guidelines.
APPENDIX "D"
to CHRISTIAN HORIZONS EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT
PERSONAL LIFESTYLE AND MORALITY STANDARDS EXPECTED OF STAFF
Staff conduct should comply with Christian Horizons' policies where stated, endorse the Christian commitment of the membership and be a positive example for the people we serve. Each staff person teaches by example, therefore they may not use tobacco, or alcoholic beverages or be perceived as endorsing their use, while being observed by our clients. Further, such conduct is strongly discouraged for the health and wellbeing of the staff. Similarly, we hold life to be sacred and the family model as endorsed by Jesus as fundamental.
While not limiting examples in inappropriate behaviour deemed to be contrary to the teaching of Jesus and His followers as recorded in the New Testament, Christian Horizons does reject conduct such as:
1. extra marital sexual relationships (adultery)
2. pre-marital sexual relationships (fornication)
3. reading or viewing of pornographic material
4. homosexual relationships
5. theft, fraud
6. physical aggression
7. abusive behaviour
8. sexual assault/harassment
9. lying and deceit
10. the use of illicit drugs
as being incompatible with effective Christian counselling ideals, standards and values.
[17] It may be observed that many (but certainly not all) of these precepts are ones to which persons of a variety of religious persuasions (and, indeed, many persons of no religious convictions) would subscribe. Believing in and leading a virtuous, exemplary and even puritanical life is not the exclusive preserve of evangelical Christians. What is unusual is that an agreement to observe such standards as well as the signing of an evangelical doctrinal statement should form part of a contract of employment.
[18] Employees of Christian Horizons are free to leave their employment, and they may be dismissed if their work, lifestyle or behaviour are unsuitable.
[19] The pay scale for employees of Christian Horizons is based upon a structure that takes into account experience, responsibility, and seniority. It was determined by comparison with the pay scale in similar secular organizations doing the same type of work. At the lower levels of remuneration the pay scale is roughly comparable to that of other similar organizations. At the upper levels of administration it is up to 30% less than that which prevails in a similar employment in comparable non-religious organizations. The reason given for this was that by paying the staff lower salaries there was more money to devote to serving the handicapped and possibly increasing the number of persons helped.
[20] One point stands out. The evangelical Christian influence permeates this organization. Whether or not Christian Horizons is an "order", it is unquestionably religious. An example of this, in addition to the passages quoted above, is the welcoming letter sent by the Executive Director, Noel A. Churchman, to new employees:
Welcome to Christian Horizons! I trust that you will be empowered by the Holy Spirit as you invest the talents God has entrusted to you.
Christian Horizons is a collection of Christians worshipping God by living and working in a manner that magnifies His name. We have all declared that we accept the scriptures as the final authority in all matters pertaining to our personal faith and conduct and that Jesus Christ is our sole trust for salvation.
At the outset I should note a few significant considerations:
1. God works in a variety of ways. Sometimes He performs His perfecting work through adversity (James 1). May God grant us the perspective that enables us to respond appropriately when under stress, and to be sensitive to the challenges facing our co-workers and the people we serve.
2. Working at Christian Horizons does not mean we escape problems. Surprisingly it is often just another step in being a disciple of Christ who told us we may be asked to bear a cross. (A cross is always unfair).
3. It is imperative that we all worship with God's people at a home church. You and I will need teaching, fellowship, and encouragement to remain effective. Unless we are spiritually well, our work becomes drudgery and God's life-changing power is absent no matter how correct our methodology is.
We serve together and come to this work from a variety of backgrounds, various levels of spiritual maturity and with different personal challenges in our home life. May God allow us to be sensitive to the needs of each other so that we can support each other without hoping to develop carbon copies of ourselves, either with our fellow staff members or the people we are called to serve.
Together in Royal Service
Noel Churchman
Executive Director
[21] I come then to the first question: is Christian Horizons an "order"? Before one can attempt to answer that question one must first determine what is the organization that purports to be an order. Christian Horizons, the legal entity, is a corporation and it is the corporate entity that employs the persons who claim to be members of an order. I do not think that the corporation, in itself, can be an order. An order, whatever else it may be, is a body or group of persons with certain characteristics. The corporation provides the framework or structure within which the "order", if that is what it is, operates. The order is the collectivity of persons sharing these characteristics and goals. "Christian Horizons" is also the name that is properly applied to that collectivity.
[22] The second step in the analysis is this: the employees, who claim to be members of an order, are in fact bound to the corporation by contracts of employment. Is this fact inconsistent:
(a) with their being members of the collectivity as distinct from the corporation, or
(b) with that collectivity being an order?
[23] I see no inconsistency. There is no reason in principle why membership in a collectivity of persons sharing the same beliefs, standards and objectives cannot exist at the same time as the member holds an office or employment with the corporate structure that forms the framework within which the collectivity operates. Indeed, paragraph 8(1)(c) is premised upon the members of an order holding an office or employment and deriving income from it.
[24] There remains, then, only the question whether Christian Horizons, the collectivity, is an order. In McGorman and Miller, I set out a number of characteristics that I consider to be indicative of a religious order. I did not intend them to be inflexible criteria, but they were, I believe, consistent with the evidence that I heard and the various religious authorities and dictionaries to which I was referred. I do not accept that there must be vows of perpetual poverty, chastity and obedience as is characteristic of many well-known Roman Catholic orders such as the Society of Jesus or the Franciscan Order. It was argued that if a vow of perpetual poverty (which entails paying the members' income to the order) were a prerequisite of being a member of a religious order, paragraph 8(1)(c) would be inapplicable to such members because an amount equal to his or her earned income (as defined in section 63) would be deductible in any event under subsection 110(2). Considerable argument was advanced by counsel for all parties on this point, and, in particular, on the relation between paragraph 8(1)(c) and subsection 110(2) in the Koop et al. group of cases. It is unnecessary for any disposition of these appeals that I deal at length with the interaction of these two provisions, or the manner, if any, in which one provision may affect the interpretation of the other. It should be observed, however, that if, as the respondent contends, implicit in the words "religious order" in paragraph 8(1)(c) is the concept of a vow of perpetual poverty, the words "has, as such, taken a vow of perpetual poverty," would be superfluous in subsection 110(2). Since it is to be presumed that Parliament did not intend a tautology (Hill v. William Hill (Park Lane) Ld., [1949] A.C. 530 at 546-547 (H.L.); Driedger on the Construction of Statutes, 3rd edition (Sullivan) 159-160), the clear inference from the presence of the additional words in subsection 110(2) and their absence in paragraph 8(1)(c) is that those words should not be read into paragraph 8(1)(c) and that the words "religious order" by themselves do not imply or require a vow of perpetual poverty. I mention this only as a collateral observation. My conclusion that such a vow is not essential to a religious order was reached independently of subsection 110(2) and I dealt with that provision only because counsel for both the appellants and the respondent directed argument to it.
[25] The characteristics of a religious order, which I set out in McGorman and Miller were the following:
[46] While I do not intend these criteria to be inflexible, I should think that the following characteristics would be indicative of a religious order as that expression is used in paragraph 8(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act:
(1) The purpose of the organization should be primarily religious. By this I do not imply that it can have no other objects within the overall context of that religious purpose such as education, the relief of poverty, or the alleviation of social ills and suffering. Indeed, to exclude religious organizations from the definition of religious order on the ground that they had objects that went beyond preaching the gospel and prayer and meditation and extended to works beneficial to humanity such as running hospitals, or helping the poor and homeless, is historically incorrect, scriptually wrong, at least in the context of Christian orders, (see James 2:20-26) and, as a practical matter, unreasonable and unworkable. The propagation of the gospel has traditionally been by example, good works and ministering to people's needs, not by merely preaching to them.
(2) The members must agree to adhere to and in fact adhere to a strict moral and spiritual regime of self-sacrifice and dedication to the goals of the organization to the detriment of their own material well being.
(3) The commitment of the members should be full-time and of a long-term nature. In some cases it may be for life, but this is not essential. It is important that it not be short term, temporary or part-time.
(4) The spiritual and moral discipline and regime under which the members live must be markedly stricter than that to which the lay church members are expected to adhere.
(5) Admission to the order must be in accordance with strict standards of spiritual and personal suitability.
(6) There should generally be a sense of communality.
[26] Does Christian Horizons fall within these criteria? In my view it does, although there are some differences from SIM or the Canadian Baptist Overseas Mission Board. One difference is the structured pay scale for the employees of Christian Horizons. Their remuneration, particularly in the case of the senior administrators, is appreciably less than that paid to senior employees of non-religious institutions taking care of mentally handicapped persons. In the case of religious orders such as CBOMB and SIM no such differentiation in salary levels exists. The employees are, regardless of qualification, responsibility or seniority, paid only enough to satisfy their basic needs.
[27] A second difference is that the homes for handicapped persons operated by Christian Horizons are to a significant degree funded by the Government of Ontario. I do not regard this as determinative. Hospitals and schools run by Roman Catholic religious orders are funded in part by the government without any suggestion that for that reason alone they cease to be religious orders.
[28] Moreover, the Ontario Ministry of Community and Social Services audits the administration of the homes run by Christian Horizons and that ministry sets guidelines and standards. This is undoubtedly true of hospitals operated by other religious orders.
[29] Whether an organization is a religious order depends upon all of the facts. No factor predominates and each must be assigned its proper weight in the context of all of the evidence. In my view, the six criteria which I set out above have been met. Although I have set out a number of factors which distinguish it from the more obvious religious orders such as CBOMB and SIM, I do not think that these factors are sufficient to prevent Christian Horizons from being a religious order. They are not factors that go to the essence of what a religious order is.
[30] If there were any doubt about the matter, I would consider the administrative practice to tip the scales in the appellants' favour, in light of the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Harel v. Deputy Minister of Revenue (Quebec), [1978] 1 S.C.R. 851 at 859, quoted in McGorman andMiller. The Department of National Revenue has since 1986 and during all of the years in question listed Christian Horizons as a religious order. This was not an inadvertent conclusion. I shall not quote the correspondence between Mr. Churchman and Mr. Brooks, a senior and highly intelligent and articulate official of the Department of National Revenue, relating to the question, in which Mr. Brooks agreed that Christian Horizons was a religious order. The exchange of letters demonstrates the care that went into that decision.
[31] I do not propose to comment in detail on the extensive argument advanced by counsel for the appellants that the Department of National Revenue had agreed with Reverend Churchman that Christian Horizons was a religious order, and that the members of Christian Horizons had relied upon it to their detriment. That there was such an agreement upon which the appellants relied is undeniable, and in Consoltex v. The Queen, 97 DTC 724, the court commented on the undesirable state of affairs brought about by the Department's reneging on its agreements. It is, however, unnecessary to raise again that troublesome issue, or the question of estoppel (see Goldstein v. The Queen, 96 DTC 1029). It is sufficient to say that in my view the Department's administrative practice in treating Christian Horizons as a religious order is entirely correct.
[32] I hold therefore that Christian Horizons is a religious order within the meaning of paragraph 8(1)(c) of the Income tax Act.
[33] Having concluded that Christian Horizons is a religious order within the meaning of paragraph 8(1)(c), I turn now to the position of the individual appellants.
[34] It is conceded that Reverend Noel A. Churchman is engaged exclusively in full time administrative service as Executive Director of Christian Horizons. The same concession is made with respect to Murray MacKenzie, Director of Finance, Donovan E. Janzen, Director of Human Resources as well as Director of Administrative Services and Ed Sider, Director of Program Services.
[35] It is further conceded that Reverend Churchman and Reverend J. Allan Shantz are members of the clergy.
[36] The issue therefore with respect to Reverend Churchman and the others is whether their engagement with Christian Horizons was by appointment of a religious order. It follows from my conclusion above that their employment with Christian Horizons was not inconsistent with their being a member of that order. It seems obvious that their engagement in administrative service was by appointment of Christian Horizons.
[37] I am aware of the argument that technically the employment is with Christian Horizons, the corporate entity, and so it might be argued that the appointment is by the corporate entity and not by the collectivity constituting the order. Such distinctions are, to use the words of Dickson J. (as he then was) in Nowegijick v. The Queen, 83 DTC 5041 at 5045 in a different context, "... too fine a distinction for my liking."
[38] It is therefore not necessary to consider the alternative argument that Reverend Churchman was ministering to a congregation.
[39] With respect to Messrs. MacKenzie, Janzen and Sider, I find that they are members of a religious order engaged exclusively in full time administrative service by appointment of that religious order.
[40] So far as Reverend Shantz is concerned, the question is whether he is ministering to a congregation. His function as minister at large to Christian Horizons involved ministering to families of the residents of the Christian Horizons homes, the staff members of Christian Horizons, the residents of the homes and families of prospective residents. This included daily devotionals, spiritual counselling and prayer, organizing and leading worship services at staff meetings and retreats. His ministering covered a broad range of pastoral activities, preaching, counselling and participating in Sunday worship services. I must confess that I am at a complete loss to understand on what possible basis it can be said that Reverend Shantz, whose role was substantially that of chaplain to the residents, staff and families of Christian Horizons, was not ministering to a congregation. The denial of the deduction under paragraph 8(1)(c) is not even consistent with the Department's own published and established administrative practices. It seems that the Department of National Revenue has taken the McRae decision as a carte blanche rationale for its reversal of all of its long standing and sensible policies and its denial of even the most obvious of cases.
[41] This group of cases included a number of other members of Christian Horizons who claimed the deduction under paragraph 8(1)(c) on the basis that they were engaged exclusively in administrative service by appointment of a religious order. Not all of them testified and a number of them have left Christian Horizons.
[42] Michael Alemu, Director of Program Development, testified and I find that he was engaged full time exclusively in administrative services.
[43] Robert B. Grimes and Douglas Sewell, two managers, testified and described generally their functions as administrators. I find that they have made out a prima facie case that they were engaged exclusively in full time administrative service. That prima facie case has not been rebutted (see Hickman Motors Limited v. The Queen, 97 DTC 5363 at page 5376.)
[44] The following members of Christian Horizons did not testify: Carmen Chevalier (Regional Manager); Michael Condran (Regional Manager); Barry Crawford (Regional Manager); Sharon Dam (Regional Manager); Wilfred Eagleson (Regional Manager); Lancelot Leach (Regional Manager); Katherine S. Loveys (Senior Director); Martha Marr (Senior Director); M. Wayne Michalski (Comptroller); Lee Mitchell (Director of Camping Ministries); Irene Moore (Senior Director); Elisabeth Nowak (Senior Director); Arthur H. Rasmusson (Senior Director); Herbert Robbins (Office Manager); Mary Roberts (Regional Manager); Anita Steiginga (Regional Manager); Gary Weber (Manager of the Conference Centre).
[45] Three of the witnesses described the work of the regional managers and others who did not testify. I accept that their work was of an administrative nature. I acknowledge that their failure to testify was because of the money it would cost and the time it would add to an already lengthy trial. Counsel for the respondent invited me to draw an adverse inference from their failure to testify. I decline to do so. Rather, I draw no inference. Generally an adverse inference may be drawn from the failure of a witness or party to testify where that person had evidence that could have supported a particular position advanced and it may reasonably be inferred that his or her failure to testify was attributable to an ulterior purpose, such, for example, as the possibility that the person might have had information that was detrimental to the case being advanced. I can discern no basis for drawing such an inference here. The work of the parties who did not testify was described by very credible witnesses — Messrs. Churchman, Alemu, Sewell, Grimes and Sider — and their senior and responsible managerial functions are set out in their detailed job descriptions. It must be borne in mind that the basic reason for the disallowance of their claims appears not to have been that they were not engaged exclusively in full time administrative service, but rather that Christian Horizons was not a religious order. There is nothing in the evidence to suggest that if they were members of a religious order and were appointed to their positions by that order, they were not engaged in that work exclusively and full time. The evidence established in my view that they were so engaged by appointment of Christian Horizons.
[46] I find therefore that they were members of a religious order, that they were appointed to their respective positions by that religious order and that they were engaged exclusively in full time administrative service.
[47] In the result, the appeals of all of the members of Christian Horizons who are appellants in this group of cases are allowed and the assessments are referred back to the Minister of National Revenue for reconsideration and reassessment on the basis that they are entitled to the deduction under paragraph 8(1)(c) of the Act.
[48] The matter of costs will be deferred in these cases as in the other groups, until I have received representations from counsel for all parties.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 26th day of February 1999.
“D.G.H. Bowman”
J.T.C.C.