Federal Court of Appeal Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content


Date: 19990111


Docket: A-637-95

CORAM:      STONE J.A.

         STRAYER J.A.

         DÉCARY J.A.

    

BETWEEN:

     CASMER J. STANWICK

    

     Appellant

    

     - and -

     HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

    

     Respondent

     Heard at Toronto, Ontario, Monday, January 11, 1999

     Judgment delivered from the Bench

     at Toronto, Ontario on Monday, January 11, 1999

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY:      STRAYER J.A.


    


Date: 19990111


Docket: A-637-95

CORAM:      STONE J.A.

         STRAYER J.A.

         DÉCARY J.A.

    

BETWEEN:

     CASMER J. STANWICK

    

     Appellant

     - and -

     HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

     Respondent

    

    

    

     REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

     (Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario on

     Monday, January 11, 1999)

STRAYER J.A.:

[1]      The appellant's position essentially is that a change to the Income Tax Act in 1988 replacing a former system of deduction of personal exemptions from personal income by a system of tax credits, is a violation of section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. He says that this change has had the effect of discriminating against those whose marginal rate of income tax is in excess of 17%, because the rate of tax credit is limited to 17% regardless of the income of the taxpayer.

[2]      We are in agreement with the learned Trial Division Judge that the imposition of higher rates of taxation on taxpayers of higher income does not contravene section 15 of the Charter. Level of income is not a personal characteristic enumerated in section 15, nor is it a characteristic analogous to those which are enumerated.1

[3]      The appeal must therefore be dismissed with costs in this Court.

                             "B.L. Strayer"

                                 J.A.

              FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

     Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record

DOCKET:                      A-637-95

STYLE OF CAUSE:              CASMER J. STANWICK

                

                                         Appellant
                        

                             - and -

                         HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
                                         Respondent
                        

DATE OF HEARING:              MONDAY, JANUARY 11, 1999

PLACE OF HEARING:              TORONTO, ONTARIO

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:      STRAYER J.A.

Delivered at Toronto, Ontario

on Monday, January 11, 1999

APPEARANCES:                  Mr. Casmer J. Stanwick

                    

                                 For the Appellant

                        

                         Ms. Eleanor Thorn

                                 For the Respondent

                                

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:          Casmer J. Stanwick

                         55 Cotswold Crescent

                         Willowdale, Ontario

                         M2P 1N3

                        

                                 For the Appellant

                         Morris Rosenberg

                         Deputy Attorney General

                         of Canada

                                 For the Respondent

                                

                                         FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL     
                                         Date: 19990111     
                                         Docket: A-637-95     
                                         BETWEEN:     
                                         CASMER J. STANWICK     
                                              Appellant     
                                         - and -     
                                         HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN     
                                              Respondent     
                                             
                                              REASONS FOR JUDGMENT     
                                                  OF THE COURT     
                                             

__________________

     1      See Vosicky v. H.M. the Queen (1996) 96 D.T.C. 6580 at 6581 (F.C.A.).

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.