Martin,
J.:—This
matter
comes
before
me
pursuant
to
Rule
474
of
the
Federal
Court
Rules
for
determination
of
the
following
question
of
law:
Did
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada
err
in
law
or
act
without
jurisdiction
in
rendering
the
amended
judgment
dated
July
17,
1984?
The
plaintiff's
appeal
from
a
reassessment
made
by
the
defendant
in
respect
of
his
1979
taxation
year
was
heard
by
Goetz,
T.C.J.
of
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada
sitting
at
Calgary,
Alberta,
on
May
3,
1984.
At
the
end
of
the
hearing,
giving
his
reasons
orally,
he
allowed
the
plaintiffs
appeal.
On
the
afternoon
of
May
3,
1984,
having
given
the
matter
some
further
thought,
he
recalled
counsel
for
the
parties
and,
again
giving
his
reasons
orally,
he
dismissed
the
appeal.
Section
17
of
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada
Act,
S.C.
1980-81-82-83,
c.
158
provides
as
follows:
17.
The
Court
shall
give
reasons
for
its
decisions
but,
except
where
the
Court
deems
it
advisable
in
any
particular
case
to
give
reasons
in
writing,
the
reasons
given
by
it
need
not
be
in
writing.
and
the
relevant
portions
of
section
171
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
provide:
171.
(1)
Disposal
of
appeal.—The
Tax
Court
of
Canada
may
dispose
of
an
appeal
by
(a)
dismissing
it;
or
(b)
allowing
it
and
(i)
vacating
the
assessment,
(ii)
varying
the
assessment,
or
(iii)
referring
the
assessment
back
to
the
Minister
for
reconsideration
and
reassessment.
(4)
Copy
of
decision
to
Minister
and
appellant.—Upon
the
disposition
of
an
appeal,
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada
shall
forthwith
forward,
by
registered
mail,
a
copy
of
the
decision
and
any
written
reasons
given
therefor
to
the
Minister
and
the
appellant.
Accordingly,
neither
the
Judge's
oral
decision
of
the
morning
of
May
3,
1984
nor
his
oral
decision
of
the
afternoon
of
May
3,
1984
was
a
decision
Within
the
meaning
of
subsection
171(4)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act.
On
May
3,
1984
the
Judge
gave
oral
decisions
which
would
be
issued
later
pursuant
to
subsection
171(4).
The
first
question
to
be
determined
is
whether
the
Judge,
having
allowed
the
appeal
in
the
morning,
could,
before
a
formal
written
judgment
had
been
issued
under
subsection
171(4),
change
his
mind
and
dismiss
it
that
same
afternoon.
In
my
view
he
could.
Where
a
judge
pronounces
judgment
he
retains
control
over
the
case
until
the
order
he
has
made
or
the
judgment
he
has
delivered
has
been
formally
completed
or
perfected.
Until
such
time
as
the
formal
decision,
judgment
or
order
is
made
pursuant
to
subsection
171(4)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
the
court
has
power
to
reconsider
and
vary
it
(Fruehauf
Traitor
Co.
v.
McCrea,
[1955]
3
D.L.R.
543
at
547-8).
The
formal
decision
of
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada
contemplated
by
subsection
171(4)
was
entered
on
June
11,
1984
in
the
following
terms:
JUDGMENT
It
is
ordered
and
adjudged
that
the
appeal
in
respect
of
the
1979
taxation
year
be
and
the
same
is
hereby
allowed
and
the
matter
referred
back
to
the
respondent
for
reconsideration
and
reassessment.
Signed
at
Ottawa,
Canada,
this
11th
day
of
June,
1984.
On
the
17th
day
of
July,
1984
the
learned
Judge
issued
two
further
documents
in
the
following
terms:
AMENDMENT
TO
JUDGMENT
WHEREAS
on
June
27,
1984
there
was
forwarded
to
the
parties
hereto
a
Judgment
dated
June
11,
1984,
in
the
appeal
of
John
W.
Shairp;
AND
WHEREAS
there
was
an
error
in
the
formal
Judgment;
THIS
COURT
does
hereby
amend
the
said
Judgment,
a
copy
of
which
is
attached.
AMENDED
JUDGMENT
It
is
ordered
and
adjudged
that
the
appeal
in
respect
of
the
1979
taxation
year
be
and
the
same
is
hereby
dismissed.
Signed
at
Ottawa,
Canada,
this
7th
day
of
July,
1984.
Bearing
in
mind
the
reasons
for
the
decisions
which
were
given
on
the
afternoon
of
May
3,
1984,
it
is
apparent
that
the
June
11,
1984
formal
judgment
was
issued
in
error.
Having
found
that
the
Court
was
entitled
to
change
its
decision
until
the
entry
of
formal
judgment,
and
the
Court
having
done
so,
the
only
question
remaining
is
whether,
and
if
so
under
what
circumstances,
the
Court
is
entitled
to
change
the
formal
perfected
judgment
after
it
has
been
entered.
In
M.N.R.
v.
Gunnar
Mining
Ltd.,
[1970]
C.T.C.
152;
70
D.T.C.
6135
Mr.
Justice
Jackett
of
the
Exchequer
Court
of
Canada
found
that
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada
had
no
power
to
amend
the
judgment
which
had
been
drawn
up
and
entered
except
in
two
cases:
(1)
where
there
has
been
a
slip
in
drawing
it
up
or
(2)
where
there
has
been
an
error
in
expressing
the
manifest
intention
of
the
Court.
In
this
matter,
notwithstanding
the
initial
disposition
of
the
plaintiff’s
appeal
in
the
morning
of
May
3,
1984,
the
afternoon
disposition
of
the
appeal
later
in
the
day
must
be
taken
as
expressing
the
manifest
intention
of
the
Court.
The
formal
judgment
of
June
11,
1984
did
not
express
that
intention
and
was
in
error.
Recognizing
that
error
the
learned
Judge
corrected
it
and
issued
an
amended
judgment
which
did
express
the
Court's
intention.
In
my
view
he
was
entitled
so
to
do.
Accordingly
it
is
determined
that
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada
did
not
err
in
law
or
act
without
jurisdiction
in
rendering
the
amended
judgment
dated
July
17,
1984.
The
defendant
will
have
leave
to
prepare
a
draft
of
an
appropriate
judgment
to
implement
this
decision
and
move
for
judgment
accordingly.
Order
accordingly.
Email this Content