The Toronto Dominion Bank v. British Columbia

The Toronto Dominion Bank v. British Columbia

Leave to appeal was granted because the appeal raises a question of statutory interpretation of the Interpretation Act interacting with the IBBA that is a question of law with arguable merit, potential general application to other statutes, and involves a significant monetary amount; there is no clear precedent resolving the point and the issue merits appellate consideration.

Citation
2016 BCCA 131
Parties
Respondent (petitioner): The Toronto Dominion Bank; Appellant (respondent): Her Majesty the Queen in the Right of the Province of British Columbia; Respondents (respondents): British Columbia (Commissioner of Income Tax) and Attorney General of British Columbia
Court
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Statutory Appeal Under the International Business Activity Act / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Appeal (leave Granted)
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted
Legal Topics
Time Computation for Statutory Filing Deadlines, Leave to Appeal, Interpretation Act Application, Tax Refund Claim
Source Language
English
Taxation Administrative Law Statutory Interpretation Civil Procedure Time Computation for Statutory Filing Deadlines Leave to Appeal Interpretation Act Application Tax Refund Claim

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Toronto Dominion Bank

Respondent (petitioner)

Her Majesty the Queen in the Right of the Province of British Columbia

Appellant (respondent)

British Columbia (Commissioner of Income Tax) and Attorney General of British Columbia

Respondents (respondents)

Procedural Posture

Statutory Appeal Under the International Business Activity Act / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Appeal (leave Granted)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.25(5) of the Interpretation Act requires exclusion of the day triggering the commencement of a statutory time period or the day after that event
  2. 2 How to compute the 18 month filing period in s.24(1) of the International Business Activity Act where the taxation year ends at midnight
  3. 3 Whether the chambers judge erred in distinguishing MacMillan v. Kaiser Equipment Ltd and in her calculation of the deadline

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was granted because the appeal raises a question of statutory interpretation of the Interpretation Act interacting with the IBBA that is a question of law with arguable merit, potential general application to other statutes, and involves a significant monetary amount; there is no clear precedent resolving the point and the issue merits appellate consideration.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted

Orders

  • Leave is granted