Docket: 97-1896(IT)G
98-1350(IT)G
BETWEEN:
RON S. SOURANI,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
____________________________________________________________________
Motion
heard on October 15, 2009 at Toronto, Ontario
Before: The Honourable
Justice Valerie Miller
Appearances:
|
For the Appellant:
|
The
Appellant himself
|
|
Counsel for the Respondent:
|
Paolo Torchetti
|
____________________________________________________________________
ORDER
Upon two motions brought by the Appellant being heard
on October 15, 2009;
Upon reading the materials filed, and hearing the
Appellant and counsel for the Respondent;
These motions are dismissed with costs in the amount
of $1,400 payable forthwith to the Respondent.
Signed at Ottawa,
Canada, this 22nd day of October
2009.
“V.A. Miller”
Citation: 2009TCC536
Date: 20091022
Docket: 97-1896(IT)G
98-1350(IT)G
BETWEEN:
RON S. SOURANI,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR ORDER
V.A. Miller, J.
[1]
The Appellant has
brought two motions; one was filed on September 11, 2009 and the other was
filed on September 16, 2009. Schedule A, attached to these reasons contains the
relief sought by the Appellant.
[2]
The Appellant filed his
notices of appeal more than ten years ago for the 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988,
1989, 1990, 1991 and 1992 taxation years. His appeals were part of a group of
appeals which were involved in a convertible hedge strategy.
Motion filed on September 11
Accounts at BMO/Nesbitt – items 1, 2 and 4,
page 1 of Schedule A
[3]
The relief sought
cannot be given on a motion. These are issues that require evidence to be
adduced which can be done at the hearing of these appeals.
Investigations by the Court – items 3 and 5,
page 1 of Schedule A
[4]
This court is not an
investigative body. It does not have the jurisdiction to independently procure
evidence to be used in a trial. Nor does this court have the jurisdiction to
provide guidelines as to how a matter should be settled.
[5]
The Tax Court of Canada
has jurisdiction to hear appeals on matters arising under the Income Tax Act
(the “Act”). Within this jurisdiction, in an appeal under the Act this
Court may dispose of an appeal by dismissing it; or allowing it and (i)
vacating the assessment, (ii) varying the assessment, or (iii) referring the
assessment back to the Minister for reconsideration and reassessment.
Adjournment –
item 6, page 1 and item 17, page 2 of Schedule A
[6]
These appeals are
scheduled for hearing on November 16, 2009 and the request for an adjournment
is denied.
Motion filed on September 16
Mandamus – items 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11,
12, 18 and 19, page 2 of Schedule A
[7]
The relief sought by
the Appellant is an order in the nature of mandamus. This is a remedy that this
court does not have the jurisdiction to grant[1].
Factual Matters – items 4, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15
and 16, page 2 of Schedule A
[8]
The relief sought by
the Appellant involves findings of fact which require evidence. These are
matters that are more appropriately dealt with by the trial judge.
[9]
These motions are
dismissed with costs in the amount of $1,400 payable forthwith to the
Respondent.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 22nd
day of October 2009.
“V.A. Miller”
Schedule A
Motion filed September 11, 2009
THIS MOTION IS FOR:
1.For this Court to note that the account at
BMO/Nesbitt with Peter McCrodan from 1984 to 1988 did not operate in the same
manner as the same sort of accounts operated by other brokers at BMO/Nesbitt or
other brokers at other brokerage/banks that this appellant used during the same
years.
2.For this Court to realize that the trades
at BMO/Nesbitt for 1984 to 1988 were carried in several different ways which
would have impact on the way the calculation of each trade should be done.
3.For this court to obtain a copy of the
Ontario Securities Commission detailed outline of the way each trade was
carried out in each account at BMO/Nesbitt by Peter McCrodan during the period
of 1984 to 1988. The Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) also has a copy of the
log book of the trades done by Mr. Peter McCrodan for each account for the
years 1984 to 1988 at BMO/Nesbitt. The Tax Court can easily obtain copies of
the above by providing a written request to the Ontario Securities Commission.
The OSC will not provide the appellant or any other individual with a copy.
4.For this Court to review the different
method in which the trades were carried out and to guide everyone as to the way
the calculations should be carried out.
5.For this Honourable Court to also provide
written guidelines as to how the calculations for each trade should be carried
out in the appellant account.
6.To delay the hearing of November 16, 2009
in the Court until the above is fully documented and done and the parties have
had a chance to recalculate the 1984 to 1988 trades at BMO/Nesbitt and if
appealed until after the hearing and decision by the Federal Court of Appeal.
Motion filed September 16, 2009
THE MOTION IS FOR:
1.CRA/DOJ to explain why the banks were kept
away from the Tax Court.
2.CRA/DOJ to explain whose agreements, new
client agreement and guarantee agreement did the appellant sign.
3.CRA/DOJ to explain who provided the
explanation and implication and guidance in the above agreements to the
appellant.
4.For this Honourable Court to realize that
based on the explanations provided by the banks as to the implication of the
guarantee agreements, this appellant proceeded to do those trades.
5.For CRA/DOJ to explain why none of the
individuals from the banks that provided the explanations as to their agreements
and their implications was invited to the Tax Court to explain.
6.CRA/DOJ to explain why banks clients who
signed the same agreements and did similar trades prior to 1984 or during 1984
and till today are not bound by the so called “Schultz Decision” or “Rezek
Decision”.
7.CRA/DOJ to explain why “group” members who
were clients of the banks and who did the same type of trades and who filed
their own Tax returns in the same manner as the appellant during the same
period were not bound by the “Schultz Decision” but rather were treated as the
other bank clients.
8.For this Court to Clarify as to when the
imply decision of the guarantee agreements was really started, is it sill going
on and will it ever stop? Did it apply to exact type of trades and agreements
before 1984, or was it just conceived in 1993 with the “Schultz Decision”?
9.Does the imply apply equally to all Canadians
irrespective of their province of residence as long as they are involved in the
same trades and sign the same agreements and if not then why not?
10. CRA/DOJ to explain why only Peter McCrodan was subpoenaed.
11. CRA/DOJ to disclose why Mr. Peter McCrodan background was not
disclosed to the Tax Court.
12. For CRA/DOJ to clarify who did Peter McCrodan represent in the Tax
Court? What was his function in the hearings in the Tax Court?
13. Why weren’t the banks arguing the cases on behalf of their clients?
14. Was CRA/DOJ involved in the cover up of the banks involved?
15. For this Honourable Court to review all the facts and evidence that
are available and see that this appellant is not treated any differently from
other clients of the bank who signed the same agreements and followed the bank
guidance.
16. For the Tax Court to take the time to review all the details
presented and to examine what went wrong with this case.
17. To delay the Tax Court hearing scheduled for November 16, 2009 until
a full review of the facts and decision by this honourable Court in this motion
and if appealed until the hearing and decision by the Federal Court of Appeal.
18. This appellant requests a written explanation by CRA/DOJ or even the
Tax Court as to why the banks were kept out of the Tax Court even though the
agreements that this appellant signed were drafted by them and the explanations
and the implications of the guarantee agreements were also provided by them
19. This appellant is requesting written answers by CRA/DOJ or the Tax
Court for all the points in this section – “The motion is for”.
CITATION: 2009TCC536
COURT FILE NO.: 97-1896(IT)G
98-1350(I)G
STYLE OF CAUSE: RON S. SOURANI
AND
THE QUEEN
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto,
Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: October 15, 2009
REASONS FOR ORDER
BY: The Honourable Justice Valerie Miller
DATE OF ORDER: October 22, 2009
APPEARANCES:
|
For the
Appellant:
|
The Appellant himself
|
|
Counsel for the
Respondent:
|
Paolo Torchetti
|
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For the Appellant:
Name:
Firm:
For the
Respondent: John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy
Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa,
Canada
Email this Content