Mahoney,
J.A.:—In
refusing
to
strike
out
the
statement
of
claim,
the
learned
trial
judge
relied
on
the
decision
of
one
of
his
colleagues
in
Optical
Recording
Corp.
v.
The
Queen,
[1986]
2
C.T.C.
325,
86
D.T.C.
6465.
That
decision
has
since
been
reversed
([1990]
2
C.T.C.
524,
90
D.T.C.
6647).
The
waivers
given
under
subsection
152(4)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act,
which
he
now
says
were
illegally
extracted
and
seeks
to
have
declared
to
be
null
and
void,
serve
no
purpose
but
to
render
valid
reassessments
that
would
otherwise
have
been
invalid
because
they
were
out
of
time.
The
validity
of
the
reassessments
depends,
among
other
things,
on
the
validity
of
the
waivers;
there
is
no
reason
why
any
grounds
for
invalidity
cannot
be
given
full
effect
in
proceedings
appealing
the
reassessments.
This
case
is
not
to
be
distinguished
in
any
material
way
from
Brydges
v.
M.N.R.
([1990]
2
C.T.C.
208,
90
D.T.C.
6463
(F.C.T.D.);
[1992]
2
C.T.C.
409
(F.C.A.)).
The
appeal
will
be
allowed
with
costs
here
and
in
the
Trial
Division
and,
pursuant
to
subparagraph
52(b)(i)
of
the
Federal
Court
Act,
the
statement
of
claim
will
be
struck
out
and
the
action
for
declaratory
relief
dismissed
as
being
beyond
the
jurisdiction
of
the
Court,
inasmuch
as
a
right
to
appeal
against
the
reassessments
is
provided
by
the
Income
Tax
Act.
Appeal
allowed.
Email this Content