Mailloux v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue), docket A-390-98 (FCA) -- summary under Paragraph 37(7)(f)

By services, 28 November, 2015

Because a hair dryer was a large building, expenditures for its acquisition did not qualify notwithstanding that it was an experimental prototype. In response to a submission that it was a structure not a building, Létourneau noted that it met the (French) dictionary definition of a building as "any construction intended to serve as shelter and protection" or "construction, generally of large dimensions, ... used to accommodate humans, animals or things".

Topics and taglines
Words and phrases
d7 import status
Drupal 7 entity type
Node
Drupal 7 entity ID
337862
Extra import data
{
"field_legacy_header": "<strong><em><a name=\"Mailloux\"></a>Mailloux v. The Queen</em></strong>, Docket: A-390-98 (FCA)",
"field_override_history": false,
"field_sid": "",
"field_topic_category": ""
}