Section 253

Under the law of Colorado, which was the proper law of the contracts between the American plaintiff and a Canadian finance company, the Canadian finance company could not be considered the agent of the plaintiff with regard to creditor's group insurance policies which the Canadian company was issuing instead on its own account. Nor did the issuance by the plaintiff, at the insistence of the federal Superintendent of Insurance, of brochures to the Canadian clients of the Canadian finance company constitute evidence of solicitation in Canada of insurance business by the plaintiff.

S.253(b) did not apply to a lender who "remained in Switzerland and was solicited there by a [Canadian] broker offering him participation in money lending activities. Neither can it be said that loans can be offered for sale".

The finding of the trial judge that the only activity of the taxpayer carried on in Canada was attempting by advertising to induce Canadians to cross the border into Washington State to view the plaintiff's building lots, in the hope that some might become interested in buying property there, by itself established that the taxpayer was not deemed by s. 253(b) to be carrying on business in Canada. The finding of the trial judge that "no offer was obtained and no attempt was made to obtain any in Canada and ... that nothing was offered for sale in Canada either through an agent or otherwise" further supported this conclusion.

The trial judge also stated (76 DTC 6178, at 6180) that "soliciting orders means that orders must be sought and attempts made to obtain them within the jurisdiction and the word 'offer' ... must be given its ordinary meaning in contract law, that is, a binding offer which, if accepted, would create a contract ...".