Canada v. Nova Scotia Power Inc.
The motion for reconsideration was dismissed because the appellants' issues were properly before the Court: an appeal from a partial answer to a compound question put the whole question in issue and the Agreed Statement of Facts provided sufficient evidence to allow the court (Pelletier J.A.) to answer the whole...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2003 FCA 163
- Parties
- Appellant: Her Majesty the Queen; Respondent: Nova Scotia Power Inc.
- Court
- Federal Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 26 March 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal (tax) / Motion for Reconsideration of Appellate Judgment
- Outcome
- Motion for reconsideration dismissed; original judgment affirmed
- Legal Topics
- Scope of Appellate Review, Reconsideration Motion, Interpretation of Compound Questions, Evidentiary Sufficiency
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Her Majesty the Queen
Appellant
Nova Scotia Power Inc.
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal (tax) / Motion for Reconsideration of Appellate Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the January 23, 2003 judgment accorded with its reasons
- 2 Whether an appeal addressing part of a compound question places the whole question in issue
- 3 Whether the Agreed Statement of Facts supplied sufficient evidence to answer the entire question
Ratio Decidendi
The motion for reconsideration was dismissed because the appellants' issues were properly before the Court: an appeal from a partial answer to a compound question put the whole question in issue and the Agreed Statement of Facts provided sufficient evidence to allow the court (Pelletier J.A.) to answer the whole question affirmatively; therefore the January 23, 2003 judgment accorded with its reasons.
Court Disposition
Motion for reconsideration dismissed; original judgment affirmed
Orders
- Motion for reconsideration dismissed
- No change to judgment dated January 23, 2003
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Canada v. Nova Scotia Power Inc. Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2003-03-26 Neutral citation 2003 FCA 163 File numbers A-108-02 Decision Content Date: 20030326 Docket: A-108-02 Citation: 2003 FCA 163 CORAM: STRAYER J.A. EVANS J.A. PELLETIER J.A. BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Appellant and NOVA SCOTIA POWER INC. Respondent REASONS FOR ORDER STRAYER J.A. [1] This is a motion for reconsideration of the judgment in this appeal which I signed on January 23, 2003, brought on the ground that the judgment does not accord with the reasons. [2] We have concluded that the judgment does accord with the reasons. The whole of the first question was in issue before the Court. It was natural that Bowman A.C.J. T.C.C. only answered the first half of the question: once he determined that the first half must be answered in the negative it was unnecessary for him to answer the second part. However, an appeal from that conclusion automatically put into issue the whole question. This would follow because of the phrase "such that" which necessarily invited consideration of the consequences if the first part were answered in the affirmative. [3] The memorandum of fact and law of the appellant at page 58 clearly put the respondent and the Court on notice that it was seeking that the whole of the question be answered in the affirmative. [4] Pelletier J.A., at paragraphs 34 to 38 of his reasons, relying on facts stated in the Agreed Statement of Facts, concluded that the whole of the question should be answered in the affirmative. This is the same evidence that was before the Tax Court and was sufficient to answer the whole question which he did. (S) "B.L. Strayer" J.A. I agree "John M. Evans" J.A. I agree "J.D. Denis Pelletier" J.A. FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-108-02 STYLE OF CAUSE: Her Majesty the Queen v. Nova Scotia Power Inc. MOTION DEALT WITH IN WRITING WITHOUT APPEARANCE OF PARTIES REASONS FOR ORDER BY: STRAYER J.A. CONCURRING REASONS BY: EVANS J.A. PELLETIER J.A. DATED: March 26, 2003 WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS: Mr. Ernest Wheeler Ottawa, Ontario FOR THE APPELLANT Douglas H. Mathew Vancouver, British Columbia FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Morris Rosenbert Department of Justice Ottawa, Ontario FOR THE APPELLANT Thorsteinssons, Tax Lawyers Vancouver, British Columbia FOR THE RESPONDENT