BETWEEN:
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
Hearing held at Montréal, Quebec, on October 4, 2005.
Judgment delivered at Montréal, Quebec, on October 6, 2005.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT: DÉCARY J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
Docket: A-475-03
Citation: 2005 FCA 323
CORAM: DÉCARY J.A.
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
BETWEEN:
NORMAND LASSONDE
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
DÉCARY J.A.
[1] The appellant filed with the Tax Court of Canada a motion to vacate an assessment for unreasonable delay and oppression. That motion had the practical effect of staying the hearing of the appellant's appeal regarding the correctness of the assessment.
[2] Lamarre Proulx J. dismissed the motion for reasons that are set out in some 40 pages
(2003 TCC 715). She determined, at paragraph 141, that an assessment cannot be vacated for lack of diligence in processing it. She relied on the decision by our Court in Ginsberg v. Canada,
[1996] 3 F.C. 334 (C.A.) and on the decision by Bowie J.T.C.C. in Antosko v. Canada(Minister of National Revenue M.N.R.), [2000] T.C.J. No. 466 (Q.L.). Even though she could have stopped there, Lamarre Proulx J. proceeded to respond to each of the appellant's arguments and determined, at paragraph 142, that the evidence had not disclosed a lack of diligence and, at paragraph 165, that the evidence had not disclosed any acts of oppression, either.
[3] This appeal must certainly be dismissed, if only on the basis of a lack of jurisdiction. A few weeks before the decision by Lamarre Proulx J. and in the months that followed, our Court pointed out on a number of occasions that the jurisdiction of the Tax Court of Canada, in the context of the appeal of an assessment, is limited to deciding whether the assessment complies with the law, based on the facts and the applicable legislation (see Milliron v. Canada, 2003 FCA 283; Sinclair v. Canada, 2003 FCA 348; Webster v. Canada, 2003 FCA 388 and Main Rehabilitation Co. v. Canada, 2004 FCA 403.)
[4] Since the appellant challenged before us the other determinations made by Lamarre Proulx J., in the hope of ending a debate that has already been too drawn out, suffice it to say that the findings of fact which were made do not disclose any palpable and overriding error (the standard established by the Supreme Court of Canada) and therefore cannot justify our intervention.
[5] With respect to the appellant's allegations to the effect that the Crown at the hearing of the motion filed documents into evidence illegally, and that the Judge unfairly prevented him from having all of the witnesses testify that he wanted to have testify, they are unfounded. They appear to be the result of the appellant's misapprehension of the preliminary proceedings prevailing at the hearing on the motion, which he confused with those more formal proceedings that would later govern the hearing of his appeal.
[6] I would dismiss the appeal with costs in favour of the respondent, costs that I would set at $1,500.00.
"I concur.
"I concur.
J.D. Denis Pelletier, J.A."
Certified true translation
Kelley A. Harvey, BCL, LLB
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-475-03
(APPEAL OF A JUDGMENT BY MADAM JUSTICE LAMARRE PROULX OF THE TAX COURT OF CANADA DATED OCTOBER 3, 2003, DOCKET NO. 96-4749(IT) G).
STYLE OF CAUSE: Normand Lassonde
v. Her Majesty the Queen
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: October 4, 2005
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT: DÉCARY J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY : LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
DATE OF REASONS: October 7, 2005
APPEARANCES:
| FOR THE APPELLANT (representing himself)
|
|
| FOR THE RESPONDENT
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
Deputy Attorney General of Canada Montréal, Quebec |
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|