The appellant’s argument seems to me to fail in two respects. In the first place it discusses the word “exceptional” from the objective instead of from the subjective point of view. See Thetford Mines Corporation v. Amalgamated Asbestos Corporation 1916 CanLII 432 (UK JCPC), [1916] 2 A.C. 588, 86 L.J.P.C. 7, per Lord Buckmaster, L.C., at p. 592. It is not a question of what sort of a tax it is, qua tax, but what sort of a tax it is in relation to the Hudson’s Bay Company. In the second place, it confuses the accidental with the essential, and attempts to create a specific and permenant difference out of a transitory condition.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.