Mahoney,
J:—The
defendants
apply
to
strike
out
the
Statement
of
Claim
herein
pursuant
to
Rules
419(1
)(a),
(c)
and
(f).
The
argument
was
directed
to
the
allegation
that
it
is
an
abuse
of
the
process
of
the
Court
and
I
shall
deal
with
the
motion
on
that
basis.
In
1959,
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
reassessed
the
plaintiff’s
1954
income
tax
return
and,
inter
alia,
added
$2,080,000
to
his
income.
The
reassessment
was
duly
appealed,
[1970]
CTC
356;
70
DTC
6262.
The
inclusion
of
the
$2,080,000
in
income
was
sustained
and
the
plaintiff’s
alternate
plea,
to
deduct
as
an
expense
the
value
of
522,000
shares
in
Canadian
Javelin
Limited
transferred
by
the
plaintiff
to
one
Robert
Sherwood,
was
rejected.
An
appeal
against
that
judgment
of
the
Exchequer
Court
of
Canada
was
dismissed
by
the
Supreme
Court
of
Canada,
[1977]
CTC
530;
78
DTC
6027.
Subsequent
to
the
Supreme
Court’s
judgment
but
prior
to
the
Minister
reassessing
the
plaintiff
pursuant
thereto,
Sherwood
was
unsuccessful
in
this
Court
in
maintaining
a
decision
of
the
Tax
Review
Board
rendered
in
June
1972,
which
had
found
him
to
be
a
Canadian
resident
in
1954.
Sherwood
had
been
assessed
in
1962
and
the
value
of
the
said
shares,
$1,040,000,
had
been
included
in
his
1954
income.
The
status
of
any
further
appeal
which
Sherwood
may
have
taken
is
not
in
evidence.
The
plaintiff
was
reassessed
in
accordance
with
the
judgment
rendered
in
his
appeal.
The
plaintiff
filed
a
notice
of
objection;
the
Minister
confirmed
the
reassessment
and
the
plaintiff,
in
this
action,
appeals.
He
says
that
the
assessment
to
tax
of
both
Sherwood
and
himself
for
the
identical
receipt
in
the
same
taxation
year
cannot,
in
law,
be
sustained.
I
say
nothing
of
the
merit
of
that
proposition
and,
for
this
purpose,
accept
it
as
fairly
arguable.
It
is
clear
that,
when
the
Exchequer
Court
heard
and
disposed
of
the
plaintiff’s
appeal,
Sherwood
had
been
assessed
to
tax
for
the
value
of
the
shares.
What
had
not
happened,
and
did
not
happen
until
after
the
Supreme
Court
disposed
of
his
appeal,
was
the
final
determination
of
the
validity
of
Sherwood’s
assessment.
The
plaintiff
applied,
under
Rule
1733,
to
vary
the
original
judgment
by
reducing
the
$2,080,000
assessed
to
him
by
$1,040,000.*
That
application
was
dismissed
and
an
appeal
from
that
decision
was
dismissed
by
the
Federal
Court
of
Appeal
on
January
17,
1980
(unreported).
The
plaintiff
contends
that
a
reassessment,
notwithstanding
that
it
ensues
upon
an
appeal
and
judgment
in
respect
of
a
prior
assessment,
is
itself
subject
to
objection
and
appeal
by
the
taxpayer.
That
is
unexceptionable;
otherwise,
the
taxpayer
would
be
denied
access
to
the
courts
to
ensure
that
the
reassessment,
in
fact,
accorded
with
the
judgment.
The
plaintiff
contends
further
that
the
Minister
is
bound
to
take
account
of
the
facts
as
they
actually
are
at
the
time
he
reconsiders
the
reassessment
on
receipt
of
a
notice
of
objection,
including
facts
not
considered
by
the
Court
because
they
did
not
exist
when
it
rendered
judgment
and
that,
if
the
Minister
fails
to
apply
the
law
to
those
facts,
the
taxpayer
is
entitled
to
ask
the
Court
to
require
him
to
do
so.
The
substance
of
the
plaintiff’s
further
contention
is
that
he
has
a
right
to
ask
the
Court
to
retry
identical
issues
between
identical
parties
because
of
an
occurrence
after
the
original
judgment.
The
Court
has
already
decided
(a)
that
the
entire
$2,080,000
was
the
plaintiff’s
income
in
1954
and
(b)
that
no
part
of
the
$1,040,000
was
deductible
by
him
as
an
expense
in
1954.
An
appeal
to
the
Court
in
respect
of
an
assessment
under
the
Income
Tax
Act
is,
by
subsection
175(3)
of
the
Act,
deemed
to
be
an
action
in
the
Court.
Lord
Halsbury,
LC,
in
Reichel
v
Magrath
(1889),
14
App
Cas
655
at
668
Stated:
.
it
surely
must
be
in
the
jurisdiction
of
the
Court
of
Justice
to
prevent
the
defeated
litigant
raising
the
very
same
question
which
the
Court
has
decided
ina
separate
action.
I
believe
there
must
be
an
inherent
jurisdiction
in
every
Court
of
Justice
to
prevent
such
an
abuse
of
itS
procedure
..
.
The
right
to
appeal
a
reassessment
ensuing
upon
a
judgment
is
not
a
right
to
have
the
issues,
decided
by
that
judgment,
retired.
It
is
not
an
alternative
procedure
by
which
the
taxpayer,
if
entitled
to
do
so,
may
seek
to
vary
or
vacate
the
original
judgment.
An
action
such
as
this,
seeking
that
result,
is
an
abuse
of
the
process
of
the
Court.
ORDER
The
Statement
of
Claim
is
struck
out
and
the
action
is
dismissed
with
costs.