Préfontaine v. The Queen, 2003 TCC 485 (Informal Procedure)

____________________________________________________________________

Application heard on July 4, 2003 at Edmonton, Alberta

____________________________________________________________________

ORDER

          Upon application by the Respondent for an Order

          1)        striking out Maurice Préfontaine from the style of cause in the Notice of Appeal; and

          2)        striking out the sentence in the first paragraph of the Notice of Appeal that reads "Whereas the Federal Court of Appeal, in previous tax appeal process, has ruled that Rose Préfontaine and Maurice Préfontaine may each be parties in the tax appeal process";

          And upon reading the Notice of Appeal and the materials filed;

          And upon hearing the parties representatives;

          It is ordered that:

          1) The name Maurice Préfontaine be struck from the style of cause.

          2) The sentence in the first paragraph of the Notice of Appeal "Whereas the Federal Court of Appeal, in previous tax appeal process, has ruled that Rose Préfontaine and Maurice Préfontaine may each be parties in the tax appeal process" be struck.

Signed at Gibsons, British Columbia, this 14th day of July 2003.

Paris, J.

REASONS FOR ORDER

Paris, J.

[1]      The Respondent has applied for an order striking out Maurice Préfontaine from the style of cause in the Notice of Appeal and striking out the sentence in the first paragraph of the Notice of Appeal that states "Whereas the Federal Court of Appeal, in previous tax appeal process, has ruled that Rose Préfontaine and Maurice Préfontaine may each be parties in the tax appeal process".

[2]      The Notice of Appeal herein states that the appeal is brought from a Notice of Reassessment issued to Rose Préfontaine, and from a confirmation of assessment issued to Rose Préfontaine.

[3]      The Notice of Appeal seeks the relief permitted by law, or as set out in subsection 171(1) of the Income Tax Act, or the Tax Court of Canada Act and Regulations.

[4]      The Appellant's representative alleges that, despite the Notice of Reassessment being issued in the name of Rose Préfontaine only, that Maurice Préfontaine, as an affected party, has standing in the appeal process in this Court. He cited passages from Principles of Canadian Tax Law by Hogg and McGee which discussed the tax base in Canada.

[5]      However, it is clear from the provisions of the Income Tax Act (the "Act") and from the definition of "taxpayer" in subsection 248(1) of the Act that tax returns are filed on an individual basis, and assessments of income tax are likewise made in respect of individuals. There is no provision for spouses to file joint returns, nor to be assessed jointly. The appeal process under the Act apply in respect of the assessments issued under the Act for individuals, and only a taxpayer named in the Notice of Reassessment has standing to bring an appeal in this Court. The fact that an individual may be affected by a reassessment of a family member's tax liability does not cause the reassessment to be against both of those individuals.

[6]      The facts in this application are very similar to those before this Court in an application in a case involving both parties named in the style of cause in this appeal. I adopt the reasons of Bonner, J. dated August 27, 1998 in appeal 98-458(IT)G in deciding that Maurice Préfontaine was not a proper party to that appeal and striking him from that style of cause. For the same reasons, I would order that the name Maurice Préfontaine be struck from the style of cause in this appeal.

[7]      I am also satisfied that it is appropriate to strike the 4th sentence of the 1st paragraph of the Notice of Appeal as requested by the Respondent. The order of the Federal Court of Appeal dated October 10, 2001 in action #A-752-95 does not support the statement, and in light of my decision striking the name of Maurice Préfontaine from the style of cause, is clearly irrelevant to the issues in the appeal.

[8]      The Respondent has asked for costs of the motion but given that these proceedings are in the Informal Procedure, no costs will be awarded.

Signed at Gibsons, British Columbia, this 14th day of July 2003.

Paris, J.