[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
95-3139(GST)I
BETWEEN:
DISTRIBUTION LÉVESQUE VENDING (1986) LTÉE,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
Motion heard on April 15, 1998, at Québec, Quebec, by
the Honourable Judge Guy Tremblay
Appearances
Counsel for the Appellant: Gaétan Drolet
Counsel for the Respondent: Michel Morel
ORDER
The respondent's motion is allowed and the conclusion of the judgment dated April 22, 1997, should read "the appeal is allowed without costs" in accordance with the attached Reasons for Order.
Signed at Québec, Quebec, on April 27, 1998.
|
"Guy Tremblay" |
J.T.C.C.
Translation certified true
on this 11th day of June 2003.
Sophie Debbané, Revisor
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
Date: 19980427
Docket: 95-3139(GST)I
BETWEEN:
DISTRIBUTION LÉVESQUE VENDING (1986) LTÉE,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent/
Applicant.
REASONS FOR ORDER
Guy Tremblay, J.T.C.C.
[1] The issue is whether, in the judgment rendered in the above case, the appeal must be allowed with or without costs.
[2] The applicant submitted that her assessment under appeal was for $59,320.27 in goods and services tax.
[3] On April 22, 1997, the Court allowed the appeal with costs.
[4] The applicant submitted that the appeal must be allowed without costs.
[5] In the main action, the appellant had chosen to proceed under the informal procedure provided for in section 18 of the Tax Court of Canada Act (R.S.C. 1985, c. T-2) (the Act).
[6] Subsection 18.3009(1) of the Act reads as follows:
18.3009(1) Where an appeal referred to in section 18.3001 is allowed and the judgment reduces the amount of tax, net tax, rebate, interest and penalty in issue in the appeal by more than one-half, the Court may award costs, in accordance with the rules of Court, to the person who brought the appeal where
(a) the amount in dispute was equal to or less than $7,000; and
(b) the aggregate of supplies for the prior fiscal year of that person was equal to or less than $1,000,000.
[7] Counsel for the appellant argued that the substantial evidence that had to be adduced (expert evidence, etc.) and the disposition of this case had the effect of resolving dozens of appeals of the same nature across Canada.
[8] The Court is aware of the work completed by the parties. However, since the appellant chose the informal procedure, it made its own bed. Where a case has proceeded under the informal procedure, this procedure continues to apply until costs have been dealt with.
[9] Subsection 18.3009(1) of the Act applies in full. The amount of $59,320.27 is an amount that exceeds $7,000.
Conclusion
[10] The respondent's motion is allowed and the conclusion of the judgment dated April 22, 1997, should read "the appeal is allowed without costs".
Signed at Québec, Quebec, on April 27, 1998.
|
"Guy Tremblay" |
J.T.C.C.
Translation certified true
on this 11th day of June 2003.
Sophie Debbané, Revisor