Federal Court of Appeal Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content





Date:20000508


Docket:A-882-97

CORAM:      STONE, J.A.

         EVANS, J.A.

         MALONE, J.A.



BETWEEN:


ROBERT RITCHIE

     Applicant


     - and -

                                



HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN


Respondent






Heard at Toronto, Ontario, Friday, May 5, 2000


Judgment delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario,

on Friday, May 5, 2000




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





Date: 20000508


Docket: A-882-97



BETWEEN:


ROBERT RITCHIE

     Applicant


     - and -

                                



HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN


Respondent


     REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

     (Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario

on Friday, May 5, 2000)


MALONE J.A.             


[1]      This is an application under section 28 of the Federal Court Act for judicial review of the decision of Honourable Judge D.W. Beaubier of the Tax Court of Canada (the "Tax Court Judge") signed at Ottawa on October 28, 1997.



[2]      In a judgment dated October 28, 1997, the applicant"s appeal was dismissed. In his Reasons for Judgment, the Tax Court Judge stated that without some evidence that would corroborate the applicant"s testimony that he had paid a 13 year-old girl named Catherine $6000.00 in cash in 1994 for child care, he could not find that the applicant had overcome the assumptions made by the Minister in making his assessment.1     

[3]      Prior to the hearing of the appeal, the presiding Judge asked the applicant on several occasions whether he was ready to proceed with the hearing and on each occasion the applicant indicated that he wished to proceed. Clearly, the applicant was afforded procedural fairness. On the evidence before him, the learned Tax Court Judge in dismissing the applicant"s appeal did not make an error of law, or base his decision on an erroneous finding of fact made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before him, or otherwise make any reviewable error in respect of which relief should be granted pursuant to the provisions of section 18.1 of the Federal Court Act .

[4]      This application for judicial review will be dismissed. No costs were sought by the respondent.         

     (B. Malone)

     J.A.

              FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

     Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record

                            

DOCKET:                      A-882-97
STYLE OF CAUSE:                  ROBERT RITCHIE

     Applicant


     - and -

                                


                         HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Respondent


        

DATE OF HEARING:              FRIDAY, MAY 5, 2000

PLACE OF HEARING:              TORONTO, ONTARIO

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

OF THE COURT BY:              MALONE J.A.     

Delivered at Toronto, Ontario on Friday, May 5, 2000

APPEARANCES:                  Mr. Robert Ritchie

                             For the Appellant, on his own behalf

                                    

                         Ms. Carol Shirtcliff-Hinds

                        

                 For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:          Mr. Robert Ritchie

                         59 Daman Drive

                         Stouffville, Ontario

                         L4A 8A7

                             For the Appellant, on his own behalf
                         Morris Rosenberg
                         Deputy Attorney General of Canada
                             For the Respondent

                         FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL


Date: 20000508


Docket: A-882-97

                        

                         BETWEEN:

                         ROBERT RITCHIE

     Applicant


     - and -

                                


                         HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN


Respondent








                        

                        

                             REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
                                 OF THE COURT

                        


__________________

1Reasons for Judgment, page 3.

 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.