Date: 20040521
Docket: T-116-02
Citation: 2004 FC 726
OTTAWA, ONTARIO, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2004
PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE LEMIEUX
BETWEEN:
469527 ONTARIO LTD.
Applicant
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
AND BETWEEN:
T-443-02
ACTIVE COIN MACHINES LTD.
Applicant
- and -
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
T-48-02
ALLADIN'S AMUSEMENTS LTD.
Applicant
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
T-41-02
ALLCOIN AMUSEMENTS LTD.
Applicant
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
T-43-02
CAPITAL CITY VENDING LTD.
Applicant
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
T-50-02
DON'S VENDING LTD.
Applicant
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
T-358-02
T W GILCHRIST VENDING LTD
Applicant
- and -
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
T-181-02
IPA INTER-PROVINCIAL AMUSEMENTS COMPANY LTD
Applicant
- and -
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
T-179-02
INTER-CITY LEISURE LIMITED
Applicant
- and -
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
T-177-02
RALPH'S AUTOMATIC COIN MACHINE SERVICES LTD.
Applicant
- and -
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
T-156-02
VIDEO AMUSEMENTS OF CANADA LTD.
Applicant
- and -
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
T-444-02
VIDEO FUNLAND ARCADE INC.
Applicant
- and -
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
BACKGROUND
[1] These consolidated judicial review proceedings were heard together since identical questions of law and questions of fact were involved. Applicants' and respondent's records and argument concentrated on four representative applicants: Alladin's Amusements Ltd., Allcoin Amusements Ltd., Capital City Vending Ltd. and Don's Vending Ltd. All operate out of Edmonton, Alberta. The parties agreed the ruling of this Court in respect of the four applicants would apply to the remaining applicants.
[2] All applicants, during the relevant period, carried on business as suppliers of services through coin-operated devices, namely, video games and pinball game machines (the "devices").
[3] The applicants challenge various decisions made by the Minister of National Revenue (the "Minister") on how GST rebates, which the applicants had applied for, were calculated under the Coin-Operated Devices Remission Order (the "Remission Order") made on March 4, 1999, by the Governor in Council by P.C. 1999-326 pursuant to subsection 23(2) of the Financial Administration Act.
[4] It is common ground between the parties the purpose of the Remission Order is to return to operators of certain coin-operated devices the GST paid by them to Revenue Canada while being unable to collect that tax from the users of their devices.
[5] Such purpose is apparent from the explanatory note to the Remission Order which reads:
The Excise Tax Act was amended to provide that, after April 23, 1996, the GST payable is equal to zero on goods dispensed from, or services rendered through, the operation of a mechanical coin-operated device that is designed to accept only a single coin of 25 ¢ or less as the total consideration for the supply dispensed from the device.
The Tax Court of Canada has held that the GST was not applicable to these types of supplies, where the supplies were made before April 24, 1996. This Order ensures consistency of tax treatment for operators of such mechanical coin-operated devices.
[6] Section 2 of the Remission Order reads:
| 2. Subject to sections 3 to 5, a registrant who, at any time during the eligible period, made eligible supplies is hereby granted, with respect to a reporting period of the registrant beginning in the eligible period, remission of tax payable under Part IX of the Act in respect of eligible supplies made by the registrant, determined by the formula
A - B where
A is the positive or negative amount of the registrant's net tax for the reporting period; and B is the positive or negative amount that would have been the registrant's net tax for the reporting period if that net tax did not include any amount collected or collectible by the registrant as or on account of tax under Division II of Part IX of the Act in respect of eligible supplies. |
|
2. Sous réserve des articles 3 à 5, remise est accordée à l'inscrit de la taxe payable en application de la partie IX de la Loi pour les fournitures admissibles qu'il a effectuées dans une période de déclaration commençant au cours de la période admissible. La remise est calculée selon la formule suivante :
A - B où :
A représente le montant positif ou négatif de la taxe nette de l'inscrit pour la période de déclaration;
B le montant positif ou négatif qui aurait été sa taxe nette pour la période de déclaration si cette taxe nette ne comprenait pas les montants perçus ou percevables par lui au titre de la taxe prévue à la section II de la partie IX de la Loi relativement à des fournitures admissibles.
|
|
|
|
|
[7] "Net tax" is defined in the Remission Order as having the same meaning as in Division V of Part IX of the Excise Tax Act (the "Act").
[8] The formula in the relevant Division of the Excise Tax Act for the calculation of "net tax" is subsection 225(1) which reads:
| 225. (1) Subject to this Subdivision, the net tax for a particular reporting period of a person is the positive or negative amount determined by the formula
A - B
where A is the total of (a) all amounts that became collectible and all other amounts collected by the person in the particular reporting period as or on account of tax under Division II, and (b) all amounts that are required under this Part to be added in determining the net tax of the person for the particular reporting period; and B is the total of (a) all amounts each of which is an input tax credit for the particular reporting period or a preceding reporting period of the person claimed by the person in the return under this Division filed by the person for the particular reporting period, and (b) all amounts each of which is an amount that may be deducted by the person under this Part in determining the net tax of the person for the particular reporting period and that is claimed by the person in the return under this Division filed by the person for the particular reporting period.
|
|
225. (1) Sous réserve des autres dispositions de la présente sous-section, la taxe nette pour une période de déclaration donnée d'une personne correspond au montant, positif ou négatif, obtenu par la formule suivante_:
A - B
où_: A représente le total des montants suivants_: a) les montants devenus percevables et les autres montants perçus par la personne au cours de la période donnée au titre de la taxe prévue à la section II; b) les montants à ajouter aux termes de la présente partie dans le calcul de la taxe nette de la personne pour la période donnée; B le total des montants suivants_: a) l'ensemble des montants dont chacun représente un crédit de taxe sur les intrants pour la période donnée ou une période de déclaration antérieure de la personne, que celle-ci a demandé dans la déclaration produite en application de la présente section pour la période donnée; b) l'ensemble des montants dont chacun représente un montant que la personne peut déduire en application de la présente partie dans le calcul de sa taxe nette pour la période donnée et qu'elle a indiqué dans la déclaration produite en application de la présente section pour cette période.
|
|
|
|
|
[9] The other key definition in the Remission Order is that of "eligible supply" in section 1:
"eligible supply" means a supply in respect of which the tax payable under Division II of Part IX of the Act would be equal to zero because of subsection 165.1(2) of the Act if that subsection was in effect at the time the supply were made.
« _fourniture admissible_ » Fourniture pour laquelle la taxe payable en application de la section II de la partie IX de la Loi serait nulle en raison du paragraphe 165.1(2) de la Loi, si ce paragraphe était en vigueur au moment de la fourniture.
[10] It is also useful to reproduce subsection 165.1(2) of the Excise Tax Act which reads:
Coin-operated devices
(2) Where the consideration for a supply of tangible personal property or a service is paid by depositing a single coin in a mechanical coin-operated device that is designed to accept only a single coin of twenty-five cents or less as the total consideration for the supply and the tangible personal property is dispensed from the device or the service is rendered through the operation of the device, the tax payable in respect of the supply is equal to zero. [emphasis mine]
Appareils automatiques
(2) La taxe payable relativement à la fourniture d'un bien meuble corporel distribué, ou d'un service rendu, au moyen d'un appareil automatique à fonctionnement mécanique qui est conçu pour n'accepter, comme contrepartie totale de la fourniture, qu'une seule pièce de monnaie de 0,25_$ ou moins est nulle.
THE MINISTER'S CONCESSIONS
(a) Multiple player games
[11] Prior to the hearing, counsel for the Minister agreed the Minister's delegate - the auditor who verified the applicants' individual applications for GST rebates pursuant to the Remission Order - had erred in excluding as an eligible supply entitled to rebate from a video machine capable of providing multiple-player games, where two or more players may play at the same time with each player inserting a single coin of 25 ¢ (multiple-player games).
(b) All GST amounts collectible
[12] After hearing argument from counsel for the applicants on the major issue whether the Minister's delegate had erred in the manner he calculated the applicants' net tax for rebate purposes and having considered the matter overnight, counsel for the Minister informed the Court the next day she had instructions to consent to this Court issuing an order quashing the Minister's reassessments (or determinations) in respect of each applicant's GST rebate application.
[13] She conceded the Minister's delegate had erred when calculating each of the applicant's net tax as defined in the Remission Order. The Minister's delegate did not apply the right base which should have been on all amounts on which GST was collectible rather than the amount the auditor used which was the GST shown in the applicants' GST returns.
[14] Those GST returns were filed on the basis of net revenues derived from the devices after deducting a fifty percent (50%) split in revenues which represented each applicant's cost to rent the space in the stores where the devices were located. This method of reporting which was acceptable to Revenue Canada is called the net tax reporting method as opposed to the gross tax reporting method where all revenues from the devices are reported in the GST returns before input tax credits ("ITCs") are claimed.
[15] Counsel for the applicants agreed with what counsel for the Minister proposed but emphasized this Court's order direct the rebates be calculated on all of the revenue each applicant received from each eligible machine during the relevant rebate period.
[16] I raised the question of costs. That matter had not been addressed. After hearing both counsel, I ruled the applicants were entitled to their costs on a party-party scale.
(c) Unclaimed ITCs
[17] One other issue was resolved as a result of the Minister's concession on the major issue of the calculation of net tax.
[18] Counsel for the applicants had raised during his argument another error made by the Minister's delegate - his refusal to recognize unclaimed ITCs. This issue, once again, relates to the net tax reporting method versus the gross tax reporting method. Counsel for the applicant urged me to rule on this issue because it had been fully argued by him in-chief but had yet to be responded to by counsel for the Minister.
[19] During her reply argument on this point by counsel for the Minister, the Court learned that if the rebates were calculated on all amounts collectible as proposed by her and agreed to by counsel for the applicants, the applicants would achieve the same rebate result in money terms as they would obtain if their unclaimed ITCs were ordered by this Court to be recognized by the Minister.
[20] In other words, no practical result would flow from ruling on the unclaimed ITC issue raised by the applicants.
[21] Counsel for the applicants agreed the effect of the referral back to the Minister for recalculation of the rebate on the basis of all amounts of GST collectible was what the Minister's counsel had described. However, he stated, while he did not anticipate any problems with his clients having their rebate recalculated on an all amounts revenue collectible basis, some unforeseen problem might arise.
[22] In the circumstances, I determined I would not decide the unclaimed ITC issue now but would retain jurisdiction to do so at a later stage, if satisfied, it was necessary to so rule after hearing representations from both parties.
THE REMAINING DISPUTE
[23] As a result of the concessions and rulings described above, only two issues remained to be resolved in this proceeding. Both issues involve whether games supplied from particular machines or devices are eligible supplies for purposes of the remission calculation. Those machines are:
(1) continuous play video game machines; and
(2) pinball game machines.
(a) Continuous play video games
[24] The issue of whether continuous play machines could dispense eligible supplies arose at the very start of the hearing when counsel for the Minister suggested I need not rule on this issue because there was no factual background to it since the Minister's delegate had not disallowed continuous play games. On consent, at the start of the hearing, I amended Justice Beaudry's procedural order eliminating devices which supplied continuous play games as an issue for determination.
[25] However, later in the proceedings, after she had agreed to quashing the Minister's delegate's unfavourable rebate determinations against the applicants, counsel for the Minister suggested the issue of continuous play video games also be sent back for redetermination as part of the Court's order.
[26] In my view, it is not appropriate in these cases that the issue of whether devices programmed for continuous play video games constitute an eligible supply, be sent back for redetermination by the Minister.
[27] The record is clear that during the audit the Minister's delegate was aware the eligibility of continuous play video game devices was a live issue. Continuous play games are those games where an individual, by inserting an additional coin of 25 ¢ , starts off his second game at the point level he achieved after playing his first game. By inserting another 25 ¢ an individual plays a third game at the point level earned during the second game. An individual has the ability to play more games by inserting 25 ¢ coins until he reaches a summit
[28] The auditor went to an internet site (klov.com) which describes how various video games function. He had been provided by the applicants' consultant, Bruce Krupp, with two lists of games owned or leased by the applicants during the relevant rebate period. He compared the listed games in the applicants' inventory with the games on Klov.com. He did not deny any of the applicants' games on the basis they were continuous play games. He decided to do no further investigation of the matter. The transcript of his cross-examination bears these facts out.
[29] These facts, coupled with my oral amendment to Justice Beaudry's procedural order, lead me to conclude the Minister's delegate had already decided the issue in a manner favourable to the applicants and therefore, in the circumstances, that issue should not be sent back for redetermination, the matter not having been challenged by the applicants nor by the Minister in these proceedings.
(b) The pinball machines
[30] I now deal with the last issue which concerns, as noted, the eligibility of the pinball machines programmed to provide three games when two 25 ¢ coins are inserted in the slot.
[31] The auditor who verified the rebate applications submitted by the four representative applicants was Gerald Pfennigs.
[32] As noted, the auditor had been provided by Bruce Krupp with two lists setting out the inventory of games owned or leased by each of the four representative applicants (one list is at May 31, 1990, and the other is at May 31, 1992). The inventory lists for each of the four representatives of the applicants were identical.
[33] The Minister's delegate accepted these lists as correct for the purpose of the rebate applications from these four applicants (application record, page 299), except for Capital City Vending ("Capital City") whose lists he rejected as being unreliable because of a high turnover in inventory. For that applicant, he obtained a specific inventory list.
[34] The record is clear the Minister's delegate rejected the pinball games listed by the applicants because he found, as a matter of fact, all of the applicants' games during the relevant rebate period (January 1, 1991 and ending April 23, 1996), supplied three games when two 25 ¢ coins were inserted in the devices (applicants' record, page 365).
[35] In his preliminary assessment for each applicant which he sent out to Mr. Krupp for comment, Mr. Pfennigs had identified certain amusement devices were excluded from the Remission Order, namely, those "for which a greater number of games is obtained by inserting multiple coins (e.g. a device that provides one game to the recipient when a single coin of twenty-five cents is inserted but three games when two coins of twenty-five cents are inserted" (respondent's record, page 34). The auditor's interpretation is in accordance with Communiqué AD-99-11 dated September 15, 1999, and two internal standardized interpretation letters all issued by Revenue Canada.
[36] The Minister's delegate determined the fact the applicants' pinball games supplied three games for two 25 ¢ coins not from klov.com which only reports on video games but on the basis of his experience gained from forty previous audits he conducted on rebate applications and GST assessments related to coin-operated devices and his personal experience in playing pinball games at arcades in the Edmonton area in his youth, drawing a conclusion it was standard in the industry in the early '90s that older pinball machines were set at three games for two just as these older pinball games were set in 2001 at three games for $1.00 (applicants' record, transcript, pages 299, 300, 304, 316 to 318).
[37] There was a difference with Capital City. From the third list provided, the auditor identified four pinball games which he found all to be ineligible for reasons stated in note 1 to his Working Paper which reads (respondent's record, page 115):
Pinball machines are not designed to accept only a single coin thus are not zero-rated per ETA 165.1(2). They are designed to accept as many coins as set by a simple back box adjustment. The industry standard was to set older games for 3 plays for 2 coins. [emphasis mine]
[38] In his final statement of audit adjustments dated November 30, 2001, to which his schedule of eligible devices for Capital City was appended, Mr. Pfennigs reiterated the point in his note 1 but elaborated. As to machine design and the industry standard, he wrote (respondent's record, page 41):
Pinball machines and jukebox machines are not designed to accept only a single coin. They are designed to accept any number of coins as consideration for one play. Furthermore, unlike the machines in the above noted court case, the number of balls or songs per play may also be easily adjusted with a simple back box adjustment. Therefore, these machines are not consistent with those noted in Levesque Distribution because one could easily have adjusted this equipment to either charge more consideration for a play or dispense less supply for a play. Also, as your machines are not designed to accept only one coin, they do not fall within the meaning set out in subsection 165.1(2).
Furthermore, based on my personal observation of pinball machines, and on discussions with several colleagues, the industry standard in Edmonton during the above years was to set the older pinball games to one coin per play and to two coins for three plays. As discussed in our letter of October 9, 2001, games that offer three plays for two coins do not qualify for remission. As no location list was provided, we could not interview location owners directly and our only alternative is to assume that your pinball machines were set in accordance with industry standards. Therefore, in addition to the reasons noted in the above paragraph [related to the design of the machines to accept only one coin] GST reported on this revenue does not qualify for remission. [emphasis mine]
[39] In fact, for Capital City, he went on the internet and found a Terminator 2 pinball machine for sale on E-Bay. He contacted the seller and found the game could be set to as many coins as desired and that the number of balls per game could also be easily set (respondent's record, page 32).
[40] The applicants' response to the Minister's delegate's findings is found in the several affidavits filed by Bruce Krupp in these proceedings. A representative answer is in his affidavit filed in support of Alladin's position is (respondent's record, pages 35 and 36):
With respect to the supplies made by the pinball machines, Alladin's, did, in fact, charge one coin of twenty-five cents ($0.25) for each supply made by the machines. Alladin's did not use any industry standard as assumed by the Minister. In determining that the supplies made by the pinball machines did not qualify as "eligible supplies", therefore, the Minister made a patently unreasonable decision. [emphasis mine]
[41] Mr. Krupp was cross-examined on his affidavits. He was asked by counsel for the Minister how he knew, in fact, the representative applicants charged one coin of 25 ¢ for each supply made by the machines. He answered (respondent's record, page 128): "I asked the owner of the operations what he charged, and it was 25 cents".
[42] Mr. Krupp acknowledged at the same page of the transcript "for a lot of them" [pinball machines] the pinball machines had the option to be programmed to provide three plays for 50 ¢ and that, even if a machine is not set to provide three games for two, it is possible to set the machine to so provide. The pinball owner could set his pricing. The machine is designed so one can change the amount of consideration to which he answered "most machines are" (respondents' record, transcript, pages 128 and 129).
[43] Ronald Sures filed an affidavit in support of the applicants' judicial review proceeding. He has considerable background in the game industry across Canada having started part-time in 1973, when going through college and then embarking upon it full-time when he bought Selectomatic Games and has been in the industry since that time. He was cross-examined on his affidavit.
[44] At respondents' record, page 153, while acknowledging pinball machines had the option to be set at three games for 50 ¢ , he was emphatic in stating that the standard was one game for one quarter. He answered "... some pinballs were - were set like, I believe, if they - some at one time may be three for a dollar, but generally, it was usually 25 cents a game". He stated this standard was not a local standard but a national one. (See also respondents' record, page 157).
[45] The applicants raise two issues. First, they say, as a matter of law, the Minister erred in law in interpreting the Remission Order, to exclude, as an eligible supply, one where an individual may obtain three games by inserting two coins of 25 ¢ each. They argue the Minister's determination is contrary to the relevant case law and does not properly consider or set out Parliament's intention that mechanical coin-operated devices should be exempt due to the fact that it is impossible for the machines to collect the tax from the recipients of the supply.
[46] Second, they argue the Minister made a patently unreasonable decision because, in fact, the four representative applicants charged only one coin of 25 ¢ for each supply made by the pinball machines. The Minister erred because, in fact, the four representative applicants did not use any industry standard as assumed by the Minister.
[47] Counsel for the Minister notes the applicants' argument that in fact the pinball machines were set at 25 ¢ (charged 25 ¢ for each game). Counsel for the Minister responds by stating, as a matter of law, the applicants' machines were designed to provide three plays for 50 ¢ even if the setting was not set to do so. Thus, the respondent argues the very terms of section 165.1(2) are not met. Moreover, counsel for the respondent argues the case law referred to by the applicants namely, Les Amusements Jolin Inc. v. R., [2002] T.C.J. No. 518, are not to the point and were at best obiter.
[48] Unlike the decision I reached in 971346 Ontario Inc. and the Attorney General for Canada, 2004 FC 727, released today, I cannot conclude in this case the auditor's finding of fact that the applicants' pinball games were set at three games for two violates the provisions of section 18.1(4)(d) of the Federal Court Act, that is, a finding of fact reached in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard to the material before the auditor.
[49] This is a very deferential standard of review akin to patent unreasonableness (see Canadian Pasta Manufacturers Association v. Aurora Importing and Distributing Ltd. (1997), 208 N.R. 329 (F.C.A.)), or a decision which contains a palpable or overriding error (see Canada (Attorney General) v. Norman, [2003] 2 F.C. 411 (C.A.).
[50] Mr. Krupp, on cross-examination, confirmed most pinball machines in the applicants' inventory had options where they could be set to supply three games for the payment of 50 ¢ (2 x 25 ¢ ).
[51] The record clearly shows the auditor made his finding of fact based on his view, at least in Edmonton, that in the early 1990s, the industry standard was to set older pinball games at three games for the payment of two games.
[52] The auditor had identified the non-eligibility of this type of pinball game in his preliminary assessments sent to Mr. Krupp.
[53] The applicants had an opportunity to counter these preliminary assessments but offered no evidence until after these proceedings were launched.
[54] The auditor based his finding of the industry standard both on his professional (40 audits in the field) and personal experience.
[55] Considering these facts, I find the auditor's finding yields no reversible error in respect to pinball games.
[56] This factual finding feeds into the legal argument advanced by the applicants the Minister erred in interpreting subsection 165.1(2) of the Excise Tax Act to rule out pinball games set (versus design) at three games for two.
[57] For the reasons set out below, I do not agree with the applicants' interpretation.
[58] As I see it, as a matter of statutory interpretation, the plain words of subsection 165.1(2) of the Excise Tax Act, a pinball machine set to provide three games for two on the payment of 50 ¢ is not a supply of a game which is paid by depositing a single coin in a mechanical-coin operated device that is designed to accept only a single coin of 25 ¢ or less as the total consideration of the supply. Plainly seen here, the total consideration for the supply of three games is the payment of 50 ¢ for two games.
[59] I fail to see anything in Distribution Lévesque Vending (1986) Ltéé v. Canada, [1997] A.C.I. No. 338, which supports the applicants' interpretation. Distribution Lévesque, supra, was not concerned with interpreting subsection 165.1(2) of the Excise Tax Act and the devices under consideration were not amusement devices but coin-operated devices which delivered goods such as peanuts and bubblegum.
[60] The applicants' counsel relied heavily upon Les Amusements Jolin, supra, which did involve a consideration of the relevant provision of the Excise Tax Act. However, in my view, a careful reading of Judge Anger's decision does not support the applicants' argument this case is authority for the proposition that subsection 165.1(2) of the Excise Tax Act sanctions zero-rating pinball games where a player must insert 50 ¢ to play three games.
[61] At paragraph 13 of his reasons, Judge Anger said it was possible to insert as many as ten 25 ¢ pieces successively depending on the device and yet only one game is played per 25 ¢ coin. This is not the case for pinball games played three by paying for two.
[62] Finally, applicants' reliance on paragraph 23 of Judge Anger's decision is misplaced as it relates to pinball games. There is no evidence before me the accumulation of credits applied to pinball games. Moreover, the qualification judge Anger put in his reasons relating to a total consideration for each credit at 25 ¢ is contrary to the evidence I have before me in respect of three for two games.
[63] For all of these reasons, I find the applicants' three for two games could not be zero-rated under section 165.1(2) of the Excise Tax Act and therefore are not GST rebatable under the Remission Order.
O R D E R
Based on the foregoing, each of the judicial review applications covered in this consolidated proceeding is allowed with costs on a party-to-party scale, the Minister's decisions as set out in the various notices of reassessment is quashed and each applicant's rebate application is remitted to the Minister for redetermination on the basis that:
(1) Each applicant's rebate application for each year during the relevant period is to be calculated on all amounts of revenue received by each applicant's eligible supply from the devices, namely, calculated on all amounts on which GST is collectible, such calculation to be made without regard to each applicant's unclaimed ITCs;
(2) Each applicant's multiple player games are an eligible supply;
(3) Each of the applicant's three for two pinball games are not an eligible supply;
(4) Each applicant's continuous play games shall not be redetermined by the Minister;
This Court will not rule on the applicants' submission the Minister erred in not recognizing each of their unclaimed ITCs but reserves the right to do so if convinced, after hearing from the parties, such ruling is necessary.
J U D G E
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
MAY 21, 2004
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-116-02 et al.
STYLE OF CAUSE: 469527 ONTARIO LTD et al.
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
PLACE OF HEARING: Thunder Bay, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: March 30, 2004
REASONS FOR [ORDER or JUDGMENT] : Lemieux J.
DATED: May 21, 2004
APPEARANCES:
Mr. T. Michael Strickland FOR APPLICANT
Ms. Tracy Telford FOR RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Buset & Partners FOR APPLICANT
Barrister & Solicitor
Thunder Bay, Ontario
Morris Rosenberg FOR RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Department of Justice
Toronto Ontario