Date: 20020508
Docket: A-671-99
Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 181
CORAM: LINDEN J.A.
EVANS J.A.
MALONE J.A.
BETWEEN:
GARY M. BULLAS
Applicant
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on Wednesday, May 8, 2002.
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario
on Wednesday, May 8, 2002.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: EVANS J.A.
Date: 20020508
Docket: A-671-99
Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 181
CORAM: LINDEN J.A.
BETWEEN:
GARY M. BULLAS
Applicant
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario
on Wednesday, May 8, 2002)
[1] This is an application for judicial review by Gary M. Bullas of a decision of the Tax Court, dated October 16, 2000, in which the Court dismissed Mr. Bullas' appeal against the Minister's confirmation of his assessment for the taxation years 1989 to 1995 inclusive. The Court held that he was not entitled to the deductions for carrying charges and allowable business investment losses that he had claimed, on the ground that Mr. Bullas was unable to produce adequate records or other evidence to support them.
[2] Mr. Bullas represented himself in the proceedings before the Tax Court and before us. His argument was that the Tax Court erred by giving insufficient weight to the documents that he produced and by not adjourning the proceedings or giving him an opportunity to make written submissions because of his inexperience. Mr. Bullas' basic complaint seems to be that if he had been better informed about Tax Court procedure he would have been able to represent himself more effectively and might have persuaded the Court to allow his appeal with respect to some at least of the allowable business investment loss that he had claimed.
[3] We are all of the view that this application is without merit. The applicant has not been able to identify any error committed by the Tax Court that would warrant the intervention of this Court. As the Judge indicated to when dismissing Mr. Bullas' appeal, a taxpayer is obliged by law to keep records to support claimed deductions and puts himself in a very difficult position if he fails to do so. Nonetheless, the Tax Court may accept other evidence in place of documentary records. However, it is for the Tax Court Judge, as the trier of fact, to consider the totality of the evidence and to assess its credibility in determining whether the taxpayer has demonstrated that the Minister was in error in disallowing the claimed deductions.
[4] It is to be inferred from the Tax Court Judge's reasons in this case that he considered all the evidence before him, but was not persuaded that it was sufficient to discharge Mr. Bullas' burden of proving that the Minister had erred. We see no reviewable error in this conclusion.
[5] Since Mr. Bullas did not ask for an adjournment of the Tax Court hearing, he cannot complain that it was unfair that an adjournment was not granted. Nor did he ask for an opportunity to supplement the evidence that he adduced by making written representations. There is no indication in the record or from Mr. Bullas' oral submissions that he was not afforded a full and fair opportunity to present his case to the Tax Court.
[6] For these reasons the application will be dismissed.
"John M. Evans"
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
DOCKET: A-671-99
STYLE OF CAUSE: GARY M. BULLAS
Applicant
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
DATE OF HEARING: WEDNESDAY, MAY 8, 2002
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
OF THE COURT BY: EVANS J.A.
DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH AT TORONTO, ONTARIO ON WEDNESDAY, MAY 8, 2002.
APPEARANCES BY: Mr. Gary M. Bullas
For the Applicant on his own behalf
Mr. Peter Kremer
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Mr. Gary M. Bullas
26 Stanhope Crescent
London, Ontario
N6C 3B2
For the Applicant on his own behalf
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
Date: 20020508
Docket: A-671-99
BETWEEN:
GARY M. BULLAS
Applicant
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
OF THE COURT