Shaklee Canada Inc. v. Canada
T-3012-90
Gibson J.
28/2/95
30 pp.
Statutory appeal from Canadian International Trade Tribunal (the Tribunal) decision goods in issue not "food", and thus not qualifying for exemption from sales tax under Schedule III of Act -- Plaintiff corporation manufacturing, distributing and marketing nutritional products-Goods in issue diet supplement products, composed of vitamins, minerals and fibre, in tablet, capsule and wafer form, distributed by plaintiff pursuant to direct marketing scheme not involving use of ordinary outlets -- Plaintiff paying federal sales tax on sales revenue from goods in issue during relevant time and submitting refund claim on basis of Act, s. 29(1) health goods exemption-Issue whether goods in issue food for human consumption -- Narrow construction of word "food" in favour of revenue rejected -- Recent amendments narrowing scope of health goods exemption: continued exemption of goods in issue dependent on their fitting within description "food for human consumption" -- Had Parliament intended to except from food for human consumption exemption goods also constituting health goods, it could have expressed such intention -- Court following Brutus v. Cozens, [1972] 2 All ER 1297 (H.L.) in finding dictionary definitions of word "food" unhelpful and preferring to rely on perception of person in the street, of at least average intelligence, well-acquainted with language in which Act written and informed of all relevant facts -- Noting distinct labelling of goods in issue, i.e. references to dosage, and warnings, and fact goods in issue marketed exclusively through direct marketing scheme, Court holding person in street concluding goods in issue not constituting "food" but rather "health goods"-Fact that goods in issue highly processed and in concentrated form not of great import -- Although goods in issue contributing to maintenance of life and growth when ingested, householder asked to bring home "food" for meal would not bring home goods in issue (The King v. Planters Nut and Chocolate Company Limited, [1951] Ex. C.R. 122) -- Plaintiff not entitled to Act, s. 29(1) exemption -- Appeal dismissed -- Excise Tax Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. E-13, s. 29(1), Schedule III.