The appellant was a private, for-profit college which offered a two-year program leading to an associate of arts degree. Its business depended on its students' ability to transfer their credits to public universities in B.C., which, unlike it, offered baccalaureate degrees. It was not authorized under the Degree Authorization Act (B.C.) (the "DAA") to refer to itself as a university, but was authorized under that Act to grant associate degrees.
In finding that the appellant was not a "university" as defined in s. 123(1), so that its fee income was not exempted under Sched. V, Part III, s. 7, Lyons J stated (at paras. 68-70, 74):
[after citing Klassen and Zailo]...I find that an Associate Degree is insufficient and that a "degree" for the purposes of subsection 123(1)...must equate to a baccalaureate degree or higher.
...[T]he fact that the appellant has not sought, nor received, ...consent to call itself a "university" under section 4 of the DAA is a factor that undermines the appellant's position that it is recognized as an institution by the provincial government.
[C]onstruing the legislation...[literally] render[s] the phrase "organization that operates a college affiliated with" a university redundant if a degree-granting institution is interpreted as a "college" in subsection 123(1). Also, incorporating and construing the word "college" in the definition of "university" makes the definition of "public college" redundant in section 7.
[T]he appellant...is a college, not an institution.