Date:
20121218
Docket: A-183-11
Citation: 2012 FCA 331
CORAM: Blais C.J.
PELLETIER
J.A.
TRUDEL
J.A.
BETWEEN:
MARIE-BLANCHE
MAILLOUX
Appellant
and
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
Heard at Quebec City, Quebec, on December 11,
2012.
Judgment delivered at Ottawa,
Ontario, on December 18, 2012.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: BLAIS
C.J.
CONCURRED
IN BY: PELLETIER
J.A.
TRUDEL
J.A.
Date:
20121218
Docket: A-183-11
Citation: 2012 FCA 331
CORAM: Blais C.J.
PELLETIER J.A.
TRUDEL J.A.
BETWEEN:
MARIE-BLANCHE MAILLOUX
Appellant
and
Her
Majesty the Queen
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
BLAIS C.J.
[1]
In
this case, the Tax Court of Canada issued a consent judgment on September 27,
2007 (Docket 2005-418(IT)G).
[2]
The
consent judgment fixed, for the appellant’s 1998 and 1999 taxation years, the
taxable capital gains on the sale of a farm (including the land and livestock)
as well as a rental property that belonged to the appellant.
[3]
The
Canada Revenue Agency subsequently issued reassessments that took the judgment
into account.
[4]
Dissatisfied
with the reassessments, the appellant filed an objection thereto, maintaining
that they did not take into account everything stated in the consent judgment
of September 14, 2007.
[5]
At
the hearing before the Tax Court of Canada, the appellant submitted that the
wrong price had been established for the livestock, and, arguing that the
consent judgment had not been signed in a free and informed manner, she wanted
to file new evidence to establish the purchase price of the livestock.
[6]
The
respondent refuted the appellant’s allegations that she had not given free and
voluntary consent, adding that res judicata applied and that the
appellant could not file new evidence with a view to having her consent
judgment set aside.
[7]
The
Tax Court judge held that the appellant had signed the consent judgment freely
and voluntarily. Three weeks had passed between the settlement offer and its
acceptance by the appellant, who had been advised by her niece, an experienced
tax professional. Furthermore, the discussions between the appellant and the Canada
Revenue Agency representatives, and the data collection by those
representatives had taken place over the course of several months before,
having begun in the summer of 2006 (transcript of the hearing before the Tax
Court of Canada, testimony of Mr. Bouchard, at page 86).
[8]
This
Court has consistently held that when a person consents to an agreement that is
later confirmed by a judgment, there is res judicata, and, barring
exceptional circumstances, there can be no new intervention.
[9]
In
my view, the Tax Court judge committed no reviewable error, and his decision
should be upheld.
[10]
Accordingly,
I would dismiss the appeal with costs.
“Pierre
Blais”
“I
concur.
J.D.
Denis Pelletier J.A.”
“I
concur.
Johanne
Trudel J.A.”
Certified
true translation
Erich
Klein
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
Docket: A-183-11
STYLE OF CAUSE: Marie-Blanche
Mailloux v.
Her Majesty the Queen
PLACE OF HEARING: Quebec City, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: December
11, 2012
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: BLAIS C.J.
CONCURRED IN BY: PELLETIER J.A.
TRUDEL J.A.
DATED: December
18, 2012
APPEARANCES:
|
Marie-Blanche
Mailloux
|
For the appellant
|
|
Dany Leduc
|
For the Respondent
|
SOLICITORS
OF RECORD:
|
N/A
|
For the appellant
|
|
William F.
Pentney
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
|
For the Respondent
|
Email this Content