Date: 20041006
Docket: A-604-03
Citation: 2004 FCA 336
CORAM: DÉCARY J.A.
NADON J.A.
MALONE J.A.
BETWEEN:
PETER HOCK
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
Heard at Vancouver, British Columbia October 5, 2004.
Judgment delivered at Vancouver, British Columbia October 6, 2004.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: NADON J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: DÉCARY, MALONE JJ.A.
Date: 20041006
Docket: A-604-03
Citation: 2004 FCA 336
CORAM: DÉCARY J.A.
NADON J.A.
MALONE J.A.
BETWEEN:
PETER HOCK
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
NADON J.A.
[1] This is an appeal from a decision of Judge Rowe of the Tax Court of Canada, rendered on September 25, 2003.
[2] At issue before Judge Rowe was whether certain amounts paid by the Appellant, pursuant to an agreement dated December 20, 1999, were deductible under section 60(b) of the Income Tax Act R.S.C. 1985 c. 1, (5th Supp.).
[3] The agreement at issue entitled Agreement of Support Payments Between Peter Hock and Rebecca May Hock provided as follows:
This agreement is to outline the terms and conditions of support payments between Peter Hock, the payer, and Rebecca May Hock, the recipient.
For the support of the existing eligible children, the parties will abide by the Consent Order, Court File No. F5612 - Courtenay Court in the Provincial Court of British Columbia, copy attached herewith.
Additional payments will be in the form of both Specific-Purpose Payments and Periodic Payments. These additional payments will all be Third Party Payments. All of these payments are for the benefit of the recipient.
The recipient, Rebecca May Hock - S.I.N 715 455 887, will include these amounts as income under subsection 56.1(2) of the Income Tax Act.
The payer, Peter Hock - S.I.N. 711 487 546, will deduct these amounts under subsection 60.1(2) of the Income Tax Act.
[4] Following a careful review of the evidence and of the applicable law, Judge Rowe concluded that the amounts paid by the Appellant pursuant to the said agreement were not deductible. Specifically, although he was sympathetic to the Appellant's plight, Judge Rowe concluded that the agreement pursuant to which the payments were made was merely contemplative, that it did not bind the Appellant to make any payment and, finally, that the agreement did not compel the Appellant to make any payment for any particular purpose on any basis, periodic or otherwise.
[5] I would also point out that the Appellant himself did not believe that the agreement at issue was enforceable. At page 34 of the transcript of the evidence he gave on July 22, 2003
(Respondent's Application Record volume 1, page 34) the Appellant makes the following statement regarding the enforceability of the agreement of December 20, 1999:
The purpose of the document wasn't to legally bind me to any sort of payments. That would be a separate issue. The issue before us is whether or not I've made these payments, and I've made them in good faith, and I've maintained them even through 2001 and 2002 and continuing on now into 2003. [Emphasis mine]
[6] Unfortunately for the Appellant, I have not been persuaded that Judge Rowe made any error in concluding that the payments made under the agreement dated December 20, 1999 could not be deducted pursuant to section 60(b) of the Income Tax Act.
[7] Consequently, notwithstanding the fact that I, like Judge Rowe, am sympathetic to the Appellant's plight, I would dismiss his appeal. However, in the circumstances, I would make no order as to costs.
(Sgd.) "Marc Nadon"
J.A.
"I agree" (Sgd.) "Robert Décary"
J.A.
"I agree" (Sgd.) "B. Malone"
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-604-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: Peter Hock v. Her Majesty the Queen et al
PLACE OF HEARING: Vancouver, B.C.
DATE OF HEARING: October 5, 2004
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT: DÉCARY, NADON, MALONE JJ.A.
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Peter Hock FOR THE APPELLANT
(pro-se)
Mr. Raj Grewal FOR THE RESPONDENT
Mr. Tom Torrie
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Mr. Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General for Canada