Counsel also argued that the collars meet the definition of brace as used in medical dictionaries. Counsel referred to the testimony of Dr. Day, who mentioned that orthopaedics is the science of bones, including the spine. Counsel argued that an orthopaedic support would include a support of the cervical spine. Counsel for the respondent argued that the issue in the appeal is not whether the cervical collars in issue are braces, but whether they are braces within the meaning of the Act. Counsel submitted that tax exemptions must be interpreted restrictively, and it is for the appellant to establish that its refund claim falls within the relevant exempting provisions of the Act.
Medical dictionaries draw a distinction between collars and braces.
Consequently, given the difference in meaning between the two words, counsel argued that the foam collars at issue are not braces within the meaning of paragraph 20. Counsel argued that the exempting provisions of paragraph 20 must be read as a whole. Parliament included in the same provision artificial limbs, spinal and other orthopaedic braces and specially constructed appliances made to order for a person having a crippled or deformed foot or ankle. In other words, be palliative as opposed to curative. In this regard, counsel argued that the collars are prefabricated and adjusted by a velcro fastener.