Date:
20010319
Docket:
97-2224-IT-G,
97-2225-IT-G
BETWEEN:
ALESSIO
RAVAGNOLO,
FRANCESCO
PIPIA,
Appellants,
and
HER MAJESTY
THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
Reasons
for Judgment
P. R.
Dussault, J.T.C.C.
[1]
These appeals were heard together. For each appellant, the
appeals are from assessments made on January 29, 1996, for 1989,
1990, 1991 and 1992. Through those assessments, the Minister of
National Revenue ("the Minister") added amounts to each
appellant's income as unreported earnings and also assessed a
penalty under subsection 163(2) of the Income Tax Act
("the Act") for each year. The details of each
assessment are as follows:
|
Alessio Ravagnolo
|
Year
|
Unreported income
|
Penalty 163(2) I.T.A.
|
|
|
1989
|
$4,474
|
$510.45
|
|
|
1990
|
$11,018
|
$1,267.04
|
|
|
1991
|
$6,055
|
$697.41
|
|
|
1992
|
$9,776
|
$1,118.49
|
|
Francesco Pipia
|
Year
|
Unreported income
|
Penalty 163(2) I.T.A.
|
|
|
1989
|
$6,067
|
$690.70
|
|
|
1990
|
$13,150
|
$1,513.01
|
|
|
1991
|
$6,262
|
$720.79
|
|
|
1992
|
$6,925
|
$871.84
|
[2]
The assessments for 1989, 1990 and 1991 were made after the
normal reassessment period. Thus, it is up to the respondent to
prove that each of the appellants made a misrepresentation
attributable to neglect, carelessness or wilful default in filing
his tax return for each of those years.
[3]
It is also up to the respondent to prove that each appellant
knowingly, or under circumstances amounting to gross negligence,
failed to report the above-mentioned amounts in his tax
returns.
[4]
During the years at issue, the appellants worked laying and
installing large-surface cement floors for Les Planchers de
Ciment M. Candussi Ltée ("PCMC" or "the
employer"), a company that operated in the industrial and
commercial construction sector. The appellants were composition
floor layers or [TRANSLATION] "cement finishers", as
they described themselves.
[5]
The assessments resulted from an audit of the employer's
books and accounting records. In subparagraph 14(d) of the Reply
to the Notice of Appeal of the appellant Alessio Ravagnolo
and subparagraph 13(d) of the Reply to the Notice of Appeal of
the appellant Francesco Pipia, the Minister assumed that
[TRANSLATION] "these unreported income amounts reflect
clandestine work and/or overtime done by the appellant, for which
he was paid by the employer, most often in cash and occasionally
through cheques charged to the employer's 'travel
expense' account".
[6]
Testimony was given by the appellant Alessio Ravagnolo and his
spouse, Ginette Ravagnolo, and by the appellant Francesco Pipia
and his spouse, Raymonde Gamache.
[7]
Guy Léonard, who was a Revenue Canada investigator at
the relevant time, testified for the respondent. Testimony was
also given for the respondent by Michel Candussi, who was
PCMC's president and sole shareholder at the time, his sister
Claudia Guénette, who worked for the company as a
secretary at the time, and Francesco Pulciani, another employee
who worked for the company as a composition floor layer during
the years at issue.
[8]
Francesco Pipia testified first. He began working for PCMC
in 1982. He said that, in his job as a composition floor layer or
cement finisher, he was basically on call and had a variable
schedule; his workday could start at almost any hour and was
generally eight hours. He said that it was usually
Claudia (Candussi) Guénette, Michel Candussi's
sister, who called him at home to tell him which work site he was
to go to and when he had to be there. The work, which was
generally done by crews, involved pouring and levelling the
cement. The cement then had to be smoothed, which, according to
Mr. Pipia, was generally done by another crew that he
referred to as the evening crew.
[9]
As regards his own hours of work, Mr. Pipia said that he usually
worked eight hours a day, for a total of 32 or 40 hours a week at
the most, depending on what Michel Candussi decided. He initially
said that he did not necessarily stop working after eight hours
on a given day and that it depended on whether everything was
[TRANSLATION] "OK" or whether he was still needed. He
later claimed that everyone stopped after eight hours of
work.
[10] Mr.
Pipia maintained that he was always paid only for his regular
hours and never for overtime, which he admitted doing only
occasionally. He explained that his arrangement with Michel
Candussi was that he was to be paid for either 32 or
40 hours a week. Thus, he said, the overtime he may have
done occasionally, just a few hours at a time-although he could
not give any figure for the overtime he worked overall or on a
yearly basis-was always done without pay, since Michel Candussi
did not pay for overtime.
[11] Mr.
Pipia said that it was possible that he worked at some sites
outside Montréal and that in such cases he was paid for
the kilometrage, for meals and for parking expenses, if any. He
asserted that he was not paid for his travel time when he worked
outside Montréal. He was reimbursed by cheque for his
expenses, and he said he thought the other employees had the same
arrangement.
[12] Mr.
Pipia stated that he was given his basic pay in cash every week.
The money was put in an envelope that was handed over to him at
the work site. The envelope contained a pay slip showing the
number of hours, the hourly rate, the gross wages, the various
source deductions and the net amount paid. The envelope could
sometimes also contain a cheque for the reimbursement of
expenses, as mentioned above. Mr. Pipia said that he did not
check the envelope's contents at work but checked them with
his wife once he got back home. He kept his pay slips for the
years at issue, aside from a few that he said were lost. The pay
slips were adduced in evidence. A document indicating the hours
compiled at the Commission de la construction du Québec
("C.C.Q."), which were based on information provided by
the employer, was also adduced in evidence. However, Mr. Pipia
stated that he had no personal record of the hours or days he
worked and had not used the individual time sheets in a book
provided by the employer to show on a weekly basis the hours he
worked each day. He merely said that Michel Candussi knew how
many hours he had worked.
[13] Mr.
Pipia admitted that he saw C.C.Q. inspectors at the work sites
from time to time. He said that he never complained to those
inspectors, who, according to him, knew that overtime was not
being paid for and did nothing.
[14] Mr.
Pipia said that Alessio Ravagnolo and
Francesco Pulciani were on the same crew as him. He said
that he was not aware of the other employees' working
conditions, particularly as regards overtime, and that he never
discussed the matter with them. Mr. Pipia also asserted that he
did not know what an hour bank was at the time and that he
subsequently found out from Mr. Ravagnolo.
[15] During
an examination for discovery on September 14, 1999,
Mr. Pipia stated that he had always been paid for eight
hours a day even if he worked only two or four, that he had
rarely worked overtime because it was not paid for and that he
had been obliged to accept those working conditions. As regards
work sites outside Montréal, Mr. Pipia said that he had
worked at such sites but did not remember where or on which
dates. He said that he had driven there in his own car and been
paid for the kilometres driven but not the travel
time.
[16]
Raymonde Gamache, Mr. Pipia's spouse, also testified.
Her testimony was, for the most part, similar to her
husband's, as she said that he had a more or less variable
daily work schedule but usually worked from 8:00 a.m. to
4:00 p.m., since he was always there for "dinner". She
also said that he sometimes worked less than eight hours a day
but that he told her it could happen that he went to the office
to help Frank Candussi, Michel Candussi's brother. However,
she said that her spouse was always paid the same amounts-that
is, for either 32 or 40 hours of work a week-and that the pay
envelope therefore never contained any additional amounts, even
though he may have sometimes worked more than 32 or 40 hours
during a week. Thus, she stated that he may have worked overtime
but that he was not paid for it. Similarly, she admitted that he
may have worked an occasional Saturday but said that he was paid
as if it were regular time, no doubt because he had missed
another day during the week. She said that the hours he worked on
Saturdays may have been carried over to another week. Ms. Gamache
admitted as well that she had heard of an hour bank. She said
that the pay envelope occasionally also contained a cheque
reimbursing parking expenses. However, she asserted that her
husband did not use his own car to go to work on sites outside
Montréal.
[17] Ms.
Gamache said that, although the employer did not pay overtime,
[TRANSLATION] "at least her spouse got his weeks". She
also mentioned that he wanted to quit his job at times but that,
since the employer was [TRANSLATION] "the biggest in
Montréal", he had to avoid turning that employer
against him.
[18] On the
more specific question of complaints to the C.C.Q. about the
employer's failure to pay overtime, Ms. Gamache asserted that
she had called the C.C.Q. about the matter. She said she was
asked for the social insurance number of the employee concerned
and was given to understand that the employer would be notified
and that the employee would lose his job and would no longer be
able to work because he would be put on a "blacklist"
established by the contractors, who all knew one
another.
[19]
Alessio Ravagnolo started working in 1957, first as a
labourer, then as an apprentice and finally as a composition
floor layer or cement finisher with a competency card. He began
working for the employer in 1967 or 1968.
[20] Mr.
Ravagnolo too said that his schedule varied and that he could
work six, eight or nine hours a day, that it was [TRANSLATION]
"never the same". He said that he worked overtime 25 to
30 times over four years but that he was always paid, at the
regular rate, for 32 or 40 hours a week. When he did overtime, it
was not paid for as such but was simply transferred into an
"hour bank" and eventually paid for as part of a
regular week of 32 or 40 hours. According to him, the overtime
could thus be used a month or two later. He said that he noted
down his overtime on a piece of paper that he destroyed when it
was finally paid for. The payment method was the same as for Mr.
Pipia, namely in cash with a pay slip containing the same
information and occasionally a cheque reimbursing his expenses.
Mr. Ravagnolo said that that was his agreement with
Michel Candussi because Mr. Candussi refused to pay him
overtime on the ground that the prices charged to clients were
not high enough for him to be able to afford to do so.
[21]
Mr. Ravagnolo admitted that he may have worked 60 or even 70
hours during a week a few times but said that when he did he was
paid for only 40 hours and the overtime was put into the
hour bank. He said that he filled out an "individual time
sheet" when he worked overtime and that the sheet was then
given to the employer. According to him, the book of
"individual time sheets" provided by the employer,
which was used by only a few employees, did not contain a copy
that the employee could keep. On cross-examination,
Mr. Ravagnolo recognized photocopies of individual time
sheets that he claims to have given the employer. However, with
regard to one such sheet in particular, he noted that it was not
he who had written the circled number 8 that appears several
times at the bottom of the sheet. Yet the
handwriting does seem to be the same on the entire
sheet.
[22] When
asked to explain how the overtime entered on a number of
individual time sheets was dealt with, Mr. Ravagnolo maintained
that he was paid for only 40 hours and that the overtime was
indeed carried over and paid for later. He said that he did not
know whether other employees were paid for overtime and that they
may have been. He said that he had asked them but that no one
told him the truth. He maintained that, as for himself, he had an
agreement with Michel Candussi and did not know whether other
employees, including Mr. Pulciani, had entered into the same
agreement.
[23] Mr.
Ravagnolo stated that he had been asked by C.C.Q. inspectors
whether he worked overtime and that he told them that he did but
that overtime was not paid for. He said that he never laid a
complaint himself. A document from the C.C.Q. confirming the
hours of work recorded with that agency was filed in evidence.
Mr. Ravagnolo said that the hours shown corresponded to
those listed on the pay slips but that, unlike Mr. Pipia, he did
not keep his slips.
[24] Mr.
Ravagnolo admitted that he worked at sites outside
Montréal and was reimbursed by cheque for his car expenses
based on kilometrage and for his meal, accommodation and parking
expenses. Like Mr. Pipia, Mr. Ravagnolo claimed that he was not
paid for travel time. However, the letters "TT", which
might mean "travel time", appear on an individual time
sheet for the week of March 27, 1990. In response, Mr.
Ravagnolo asserted that the employer did not pay for travel time
outside Montréal.
[25]
Ginette Ravagnolo testified after her husband. She said that
his work schedule was variable but that he generally began his
day at about 7:00 or 8:00 a.m. and was back for
"dinner". She stated that he often came back before
working a full eight hours and that he very rarely worked
overtime. She said that she did not remember precisely but that
it could have occurred from time to time, perhaps once a
week.
[26] Mrs.
Ravagnolo also stated that her husband was not paid if he worked
more than eight hours in a day. She said that overtime was
carried over to another week for which he was then paid for
either 32 or 40 hours. She explained that sometimes her husband
worked only a single day in a week and the week was completed
using the hour bank system. Thus, she admitted that he was paid
for his overtime but at the regular rate. Mrs. Ravagnolo stated
that she did not remember whether he may have worked more than 50
hours or even 60 hours in a week, but she said that it was
possible.
[27] As
regards work sites outside Montréal, she said that her
husband had worked at such sites occasionally and been reimbursed
by cheque for his accommodation, meal and parking expenses and
for the kilometres driven. She said that he was not paid for
travel time.
[28] Mrs.
Ravagnolo admitted that her husband filled out at home individual
time sheets in a book. When asked whether she recognized her
husband's handwriting on copies of two sheets, she said that
the handwriting was indeed his, but that the figures written on
the sheets were not in his hand.
[29]
Guy Léonard, an investigator with the Laval
investigations office, was given PCMC's file to gather
evidence of tax fraud with a view to criminal prosecution. A
prior audit had in fact uncovered some indications of fraud,
namely unreported income deposited in a concealed bank account
that did not appear in PCMC's books. That unreported income
corresponded to amounts that were billed to clients by making a
second use of numbered invoices already used to bill other
clients.
[30] Mr.
Léonard received PCMC's file for investigation
purposes on October 26, 1993. On October 29, 1993, he met
for the first time with a representative of the company, one
Michel Côté, who had been expressly authorized by
Michel Candussi to try to reach an agreement or settlement
even before the investigation. Mr. Léonard's
investigation led him to conclude that PCMC had failed to report
$2.3 million from 1987 to 1992. Mr. Léonard first
told PCMC's representative of this result on March 18, 1994.
According to Mr. Léonard, Mr. Côté knew that
there was unreported income but did not know how much. Mr.
Côté therefore asked for permission to check into
the matter before confirming the amount, while at the same time
stressing that there were expenses to be deducted from the income
in question. A number of telephone conversations and meetings
followed. At a meeting on May 11, 1994, Mr. Léonard
was verbally given details by Mr. Côté concerning
the amounts of the unreported income and of the wage expenses
that had not been claimed. At that time, Mr. Côté
said that he had documents concerning the amounts paid to each
employee with details on the hours. However, Mr. Léonard
insisted on having supporting documents that could prove that the
expenses claimed against the additional income with respect to
which he planned to assess were genuine.
[31] On June
11, 1994, Mr. Léonard met with Mr. Côté
and Mr. Candussi again. Those two men had prepared a draft
agreement which covered both the criminal and the civil aspects
of the fraud and set out figures concerning the unreported income
and the expenses they considered deductible. However,
Mr. Léonard said that, since the supporting documents
for the claimed expenses still had not been provided, he told
them that he was not in a position to negotiate.
[32] As he
had not obtained the supporting documents for the expenses by the
end of the summer vacation period, and since he felt that he had
given PCMC and its representatives, including an outside
accountant, all the time they needed to make the necessary checks
and calculations, Mr. Léonard-after first notifying
Mr. Côté-went to PCMC's place of business
on August 26, 1994, to obtain the requested documents. The
receptionist and Michel Candussi were present. It was at that
point that Mr. Léonard was given some 10,000 to 12,000
documents regarding the wages paid to the employees from 1989 to
1992. Those documents included the following:
•
The employer's weekly reports on each employee from June 1989
to December 1992.
•
The individual time sheets filled out by some employees, which
were attached to the weekly reports.
•
A certain number of notes from either the employer or the
employees, which were attached to the weekly reports.
•
The payroll journal.
•
Documents on the remittance of source deductions, records of
employment and summaries of the source deductions.
•
Extracts from the ledger concerning the item "travelling
expenses".
[33]
According to Mr. Léonard, there was a separate sheet for
each employee in the employer's weekly reports. The reports
were sorted by week and by month. The weekly report for an
employee often had attached to it an individual time sheet
provided by the employee or a note written by either the employer
or the employee.
[34]
Photocopies of the documents concerning the two appellants were
filed in evidence as part of Exhibit I-1 with respect
to Francesco Pipia and as part of Exhibit I-3
with respect to Alessio Ravagnolo. Since counsel for the
appellants objected to the filing of those photocopies on the
ground that only the originals obtained by Mr. Léonard
were admissible in evidence, it is important to note here that
Mr. Léonard stated that he himself made two photocopies of
each document obtained from the employer. One of the two
photocopies was put in the vault at the offices of the Department
of National Revenue, while the other was used as a working
document and then placed in the file sent to the Department of
Justice. The documents adduced in evidence as being from PCMC are
therefore photocopies of the copy given to the Department of
Justice.
[35]
Moreover, I note that the documents obtained by Mr.
Léonard were not so obtained through a seizure or
requirement, as argued by counsel for the appellants. The
documents were given to Mr. Léonard by Michel Candussi on
a strictly voluntary basis.
[36] I will
deal with the above objection later on, in the
analysis.
[37] After
obtaining the documents, Mr. Léonard began checking to
determine whether the additional expenses claimed, which were
mainly wage expenses, were justified. Following the completion of
that work, and on being informed of the results-which were
substantially different from the figures suggested by PCMC at the
meeting on June 11, 1994-Mr. Candussi requested that the
documents provided to Mr. Léonard be returned to him
so that he could check the calculations and explain the
differences. The originals of the documents obtained by Mr.
Léonard were therefore returned to Mr. Candussi on
November 17 and 18 and December 13, 1994. As Mr.
Léonard explained, the documents had been lent to him so
that he could check the validity of the additional expenses being
claimed against the unreported income. Since the documents
belonged to PCMC, they could not be kept by Revenue Canada and
had to be given back to their owner at their owner's
request.
[38] Mr.
Léonard said that the employer subsequently realized that
certain mistakes had been made and so ultimately arrived at about
the same amounts that he himself had calculated. Those amounts
were therefore used to make reassessments against PCMC and Michel
Candussi personally for appropriation of funds. They were also
used as a basis for bringing criminal proceedings against those
two taxpayers.
[39] In his
testimony, Mr. Léonard admitted that the normal procedure
when it is found that income has not been reported is indeed to
ask the taxpayer whether the taxpayer can prove that there are
expenses deductible against that additional income and to accept
such expenses only insofar as it is demonstrated that they are
genuine.
[40]
According to Mr. Léonard, the expenses that he ultimately
agreed to recognize and that PCMC was able to use to reduce its
unreported income resulted from his in-depth analysis of
the documents obtained, upon which a number of validation
exercises were performed.
[41] As a
result of the same analysis, proposed assessments for unreported
income were sent to about 40 employees of PCMC on March 17, 1995.
After many meetings were held with employees and submissions were
made by a few lawyers, the assessments themselves were finally
made against the employees concerned in January and February 1996
for the unreported income for 1989 to 1992. For each appellant
herein, those assessments are the ones at issue here, the details
of which are set out in paragraph [1] of these Reasons for
Judgment.
[42] In his
testimony, Mr. Léonard, backing himself up with examples,
explained how he was able to calculate the unreported income of
each employee, including the two appellants, by using the weekly
reports concerning them. The reports show the employee's
name, the employee's basic hourly rate, the date on which the
period ended, the name of the work site or client and the number
of hours worked each day. The hours are shown in separate boxes
depending on whether they are regular hours or hours worked at
"double time" or "time and half". The rate
paid for overtime is also shown in a separate column under the
heading "rate". It is the rate used by PCMC, and it
does not correspond to the rate prescribed in the decree, which
should normally be twice or one and a half times the basic rate
shown. For example, for part of 1990, the basic hourly rate shown
for Mr. Pipia is $19.51, while the overtime rate is
$24.80. The weekly reports also
indicate the total number of regular and overtime hours worked.
The "amount" column shows the amount resulting from the
multiplication of the hourly rate indicated on the "double
time" or "time and half" line by the hourly rate
shown in the "rate" column. Moreover, as regards the
regular hours, the amount shown is not the result of multiplying
the basic rate shown by the number of hours but is rather the
amount paid as indicated in the payroll journal. According to the
information in the payroll journal, to arrive at the
amount paid for regular hours-that is, after all source
deductions-the number of hours was multiplied by the applicable
hourly rate and an amount corresponding to 10 percent was
then added for vacation to obtain the gross wages. Source
deductions were subtracted from that amount. To the net amount
obtained was added an amount corresponding to 10 cents an hour
for the hours shown. This last amount was added to compensate for
equipment use by the employees. The information in the payroll
journal is actually exactly the same as that on the pay slips,
since PCMC used a system involving carbon paper that allowed the
information written directly on the pay slips to be printed in
the payroll journal and on an additional copy. Finally, through
the addition of the gross amount for overtime and the amount paid
for regular hours as entered in the payroll journal, the weekly
reports indicate the total that was apparently paid to the
employee each week.
[43] Mr.
Léonard also explained, again backing himself up with
examples, that certain regular or overtime hours were sometimes
dealt with in a special way. In such cases, the number of hours
in question was generally circled. Thus, some of the hours worked
in a given week could be carried forward to another week and paid
for as if they were part of the regular working hours that
week. Occasionally, on the
other hand, a certain number of hours, eight for example-that is,
a basic workday-could be advanced.
[44] In
other cases, overtime could be converted to regular hours on the
basis of eight regular hours for five overtime hours.
[45] Mr.
Léonard said that, despite the magnitude of his task, he
did not have too much trouble determining the overtime that had
been paid to PCMC's employees during the years at issue but
not reported by them. Occasionally, when he was unable to make
out certain entries in the weekly reports, he obtained the
information from Mr. Côté or Mr. Candussi. His
analysis of the weekly reports and the payroll journal shows that
in general, with rare exceptions, the overtime shown in the
weekly reports was not entered in the payroll journal, was not
paid for in cash based on a rate determined by the employer and
was not reported by the employees. The results of Mr.
Léonard's analysis regarding Mr. Pipia and
Mr. Ravagnolo are compiled at Tab 8 of Exhibits I-1
and I-3, respectively.
[46] Mr.
Léonard explained that a number of validation exercises
were performed on the results obtained, inter alia using
the individual time sheets or certain notes, where such existed.
In the case of Mr. Ravagnolo, there are 26 individual time
sheets: nine for 1989, sixteen for 1990 and one for 1991. The hours shown do
correspond to those found in PCMC's weekly reports. As for
Mr. Pipia, he said that he did not use the individual time
sheets. In the documents that the respondent submitted as being
from PCMC, there is just one individual time sheet for the week
of November 18, 1989. It shows 32 hours of
regular time at $18.47 an hour and 11 hours of overtime at $23.50
an hour. The total of $408.88 indicated for the regular hours
corresponds to the amount paid according to the payroll journal
($405.68 net plus $3.20) which, moreover, makes no reference to
the overtime. PCMC's weekly
report for that week is missing, but the individual time sheet
seems to have been used as a weekly report, since that sheet
indicates that $258.50 gross (or 11 hours at $23.50) was paid for
overtime. Since the amount paid for the regular hours takes
account of deductions and amounts added based on what is entered
in the payroll journal, and since the individual time sheet does
not show just the hours worked each day, it can be assumed that
the sheet was filled out by a secretary or by Mr. Candussi and
not by Mr. Pipia himself.
[47] Of
course, Mr. Léonard also checked the payroll journal to
make sure that he did not add amounts that had already been
reported. By examining a certain number of PCMC's invoices to
its clients that were obtained during the audit,
Mr. Léonard also made sure that work had actually
been done at the places indicated in the weekly
reports.
[48] Mr.
Léonard also checked the reimbursement of the
employees' expenses and the matter of payment for travel time
for work done at sites outside Montréal. Comparing the
information in the weekly reports with that entered in the ledger
under the item "travelling expenses", Mr. Léonard
determined that the employees were not only reimbursed for
kilometrage and other expenses when they had to travel outside
Montréal but were also paid for their travel time,
contrary to what the appellants stated. The expenses were
generally reimbursed and the travel time generally paid for by
cheque, which is confirmed by the entries found in the ledger. It
should be noted here that Mr. Léonard testified that the
amounts so paid to the employees by cheque for travel time were
not added to the amounts assessed. Thus, only the amounts that
the weekly reports indicated were paid in cash and that did not
appear in the payroll journal were added to the employees'
income by the reassessments made in January and February 1996. In
short, as regards payment for travel time, the comparison that
Mr. Léonard made between the information in the weekly
reports and the information in the ledger was actually a
validation exercise that, in his view, confirmed the reliability
of the information in the weekly reports.
[49] The
testimony of Claudia Guénette,
Michel Candussi's sister, who worked for PCMC as a
secretary at the relevant time, did not really add anything of
any significance for the purposes of the disposition of these
cases. Ms. Guénette said that one of her duties was to
complete, at least in part, the weekly reports based on the
information obtained from various people in various ways. The
information could come from her brother or the employees
themselves. It could sometimes be obtained in person, and it was
occasionally obtained over the telephone. Otherwise, it was taken
from pieces of paper or from the individual time sheets used by
certain employees. Her testimony, which was incredibly vague and
imprecise on a number of points, did not really clarify how the
weekly reports were actually completed each week, aside from the
fact that she did part of the work and that the other secretary
or even Ms. Guénette's brother,
Michel Candussi, might take care of entering the additional
information needed to prepare the pays. When questioned about
certain features of the weekly reports, she admitted that her
brother Michel had made agreements or arrangements with the
employees, that the payroll journal in which she made entries
generally showed only 32 or 40 hours of work a week, that
overtime was sometimes converted into regular hours and that some
hours may have been carried over and paid for in subsequent
weeks. What emerges from her testimony, when all is said and
done, is that the information was entered in the weekly reports
according to the instructions given by Michel Candussi based on
his agreements with the employees. However, she asserted that she
did not know exactly what those agreements were or the names of
the employees with whom her brother Michel had such agreements.
When asked to comment on some of the weekly reports, she admitted
that the employees' travel time in connection with work sites
outside Montréal was paid for and that the payment could
be made either in cash or by cheque.
[50] An
important point, however, is that there was not the slightest
thing in her testimony that could suggest that the information in
the weekly reports does not reflect reality or that the reports
may have subsequently been altered.
[51] As we
know, the investigation by Mr. Léonard of Revenue Canada
was initially directed at PCMC's activities as directed by
its sole shareholder and director, Michel Candussi. Having
pleaded guilty to the criminal charges laid, PCMC and Mr.
Candussi also had to face reassessments based on the results of
Mr. Léonard's investigation. However, the
criminal proceedings and the assessments reveal that PCMC's
unreported income, as determined by Mr. Léonard, was
reduced by the wage amounts that were paid to the employees but
not entered in the books.
[52]
Although the appellants in the instant cases claimed that,
pursuant to a special agreement with Michel Candussi, they
were never paid cash by PCMC for overtime, they never called him
to testify to confirm their version of the facts.
[53] Mr.
Candussi, who was called as a witness by the respondent,
constantly equivocated in his testimony. Obviously concerned with
doing his former employees as little harm as possible, he did
nothing but make one contradictory statement after another. For
example, he first stated that he paid all the employees for all
the hours they worked. He then said that, if he did not pay for
all the hours, no one ever came and claimed payment for those
hours. Finally, he stated that, if the appellants said that he
did not pay for those hours, it must be because he did not pay
for them.
[54] Mr.
Candussi testified that, [TRANSLATION] "most of the
time", he himself recorded the overtime information in the
weekly reports based on his agreements with the employees. He
said that most of PCMC's employees took advantage of the
system of unreported hours of work that were paid for in cash and
not entered in the payroll journal. It seems as well that those
hours, which generally involved overtime, were paid for not at
the rate set out in the decree, namely time and a half or double
time, but rather in cash at a rate agreed on with each employee,
without any source deductions. However, Mr. Candussi also
said-and this was something that had already been shown by
Mr. Léonard's testimony-that another type of
agreement or part of an agreement involved carrying the hours
worked beyond 40 hours in a given week over to another week.
When asked whether Mr. Pipia worked only 32 or 40 hours a
week pursuant to the agreement they had reached,
Mr. Candussi answered as follows: [TRANSLATION] "I
think so, it's noted down". In the context, it is not
very difficult to interpret that answer. According to
Mr. Candussi, insofar as hours were carried over, it was to
complete another week of 32 or 40 hours, and he thought in this
regard that his agreement with Mr. Ravagnolo was the same as
his agreement with Mr. Pipia. Mr. Candussi also said that Mr.
Pipia and Mr. Ravagnolo did not work much overtime. He
answered the next question, namely whether it was possible that
those two employees were not paid at all for overtime during the
four years at issue, as follows: [TRANSLATION] "I don't
remember that. I must not have paid them, in that case." The
weekly reports for 1990 alone show 530 hours of overtime for
Mr. Pipia and 453 hours for Mr. Ravagnolo. Yet
Mr. Candussi said that, if those men worked a little
overtime, it was for small amounts of money, that the agreements
had changed over the years and that he did not really remember
whether an hour bank was used for them. He finished his testimony
by saying that, generally speaking, he did not remember the
precise facts.
[55] In my
opinion, there is no point in referring to other parts of
Mr. Candussi's testimony, which, on the whole, proved to
be a muddle of evasive and contradictory answers punctuated by
numerous lapses of memory. Suffice it to add that Mr. Candussi
referred to a black book he had at the time that he said
contained certain details about amounts to be paid to the
employees. That book was never handed over to the authorities,
and Mr. Candussi said that he had since destroyed it. Thus, no
one has been able to verify the information it actually
contained.
[56] Here
again, it is important to note that there is nothing to suggest
that the weekly reports do not reflect reality or that they may
have subsequently been altered in any way.
[57] The
testimony of Francesco Pulciani, a composition floor layer who
worked for PCMC for 20 years, was brief. He was one of the
employees who used individual time sheets to record the hours
they worked every day of the week for a number of years. Copies
of those time sheets, of the weekly reports and of extracts from
the payroll journal and the ledger, as well as Mr.
Léonard's work sheets concerning Mr. Pulciani,
were adduced in evidence. As he had done in the case of the
appellants, counsel for the appellants objected to the filing of
the documents from PCMC on the ground that they were copies, and
even copies of copies, of the original documents.
[58] Mr.
Pulciani said that, in their original form, the individual time
sheets used were in duplicate, like invoices. One copy was to be
kept by the employee and the other was given to the employer,
that is, either to Michel Candussi or to one of the truck
drivers, who then gave it to the secretary. Mr. Pulciani stated
that his own time sheets were filled out by his daughter since he
himself had little education. With regard to overtime, he said
that nearly all the employees were paid for overtime in cash
because Michel Candussi refused to pay the time-and-a-half rate.
Mr. Pulciani admitted that he made a mistake and said that
he has since paid both his federal and his provincial
taxes.
[59] After
objecting to the filing of the copies of the documents from PCMC
obtained by Mr. Léonard for his investigation, counsel for
the appellants maintained in his very lengthy argument that,
through their own testimony and that of their spouses, the
appellants had adduced prima facie evidence that they had
not received the amounts indicated in the weekly reports for
overtime. Moreover, he argued that the respondent, whose evidence
was based essentially on the entries in those weekly reports, had
not discharged her burden of proving that the amounts in question
had likely or even probably been received. Counsel for the
appellants thus stressed that the appellants both had a special
agreement with Michel Candussi whereby they would be paid
for only 32 or 40 hours of work a week, inter alia to
ensure that their earnings would be steady and regular, which was
why some overtime was carried over to other weeks on rare
occasions. He argued that the appellants were therefore paid for
only 32 or 40 hours a week and sometimes for fewer hours during
the years at issue. They also, he said, occasionally received a
cheque to reimburse them for travel expenses in connection with
work on sites outside Montréal. The appellants therefore
never received any amounts over and above their basic pay, and
this, he said, was corroborated by their spouses.
[60] Counsel
for the appellants also challenged the conclusions reached by
Mr. Léonard, whose investigation, he said, lacked
rigour because it was based only on PCMC's weekly reports and
a few individual time sheets in the case of Mr. Ravagnolo.
Counsel for the appellants stressed that it was shown at the
hearing that at least two people completed those weekly reports,
namely Michel Candussi and his sister, Claudia
Guénette, and that it was not possible to really know who
wrote what, although Michel Candussi admitted that his sister
[TRANSLATION] "entered the regular time" while he
[TRANSLATION] "entered the overtime". Given that the
weekly reports were completed by more than one person, counsel
for the appellants argued that the most plausible assumption is
that they could have been completed not every week but rather-as
far as the overtime is concerned-much later, namely in 1993
during the audit preceding Mr. Léonard's
investigation.
[61]
Emphasizing again that the documents submitted are merely copies
and, even worse, copies of copies, of which no expert assessment
is possible, and going on to assert that, as regards the
overtime, the documents were likely completed much later either
to comply with the C.C.Q.'s regulations or for tax reasons,
counsel for the appellants argued that the weekly reports are not
reliable enough to give credence to what is stated therein. He
therefore maintained that, absent other contemporaneous notes or
documents, including the black book containing information on how
the hours worked by the employees were dealt with, which Michel
Candussi had but has since destroyed, the weekly reports do not
have sufficient probative value, especially since Mr. Candussi,
in his testimony, did not clearly establish that the little
overtime worked by the appellants was paid for in
cash.
[62] In
support of his arguments, counsel for the appellants referred,
inter alia, to this Court's decisions in Esteves v.
Canada, [1995] 1 C.T.C. 2884, [1994] T.C.J. No. 353, and
Simard v. R., [1998] 3 C.T.C. 2839, [1997] T.C.J.
No. 1321, which bear some similarity to the instant appeals.
Counsel for the appellants also referred to the decision in
Firestone Stores v. Ste-Marie, [1978] C.P. 377, which
referred to the statement by authors Nadeau and Ducharme that [TRANSLATION]
"entries in the business records [or] books kept by
merchants . . . are domestic records and papers
that are in no way evidence in favour of the merchants, since it
would be too easy to create probative documents oneself". In
this regard, counsel for the appellants also referred to the rule
set out in article 2832 of the Civil Code of
Québec. I will simply say here that it is difficult to
see how that rule, which states that a writing that is neither
authentic nor semi-authentic which relates a fact is admissible
as proof against the person who wrote it, by way of testimony or
admission, can work in the appellants' favour in this
case.
[63] Counsel
for the respondent began by noting certain contradictions in the
testimony of the appellants and their spouses as regards the
hours and days worked. He then pointed out the contradictions
between Mr. Ravagnolo's statements and his own individual
time sheets. Counsel for the respondent next expressed surprise
that the appellants could have worked so long for an employer
that refused to pay overtime and that they were unable to
complain about this to anyone or they would be fired and
blacklisted. If they were exploited in this fashion and there was
nothing they could do, it is implausible, argued counsel for the
respondent, that they did not know whether the other employees
were being paid for overtime, since they had been working
together for years.
[64] Counsel
for the respondent then referred to certain parts of Mr.
Candussi's testimony concerning, inter alia, the
preparation of the weekly reports, the existence of clandestine
work in an industry in which there was fierce competition and the
use of the hour bank system. He also pointed out that
Mr. Candussi had referred to a black book in which may have
been entered certain amounts that were owed and not paid.
However, he emphasized that no one had ever been able to see that
black book.
[65]
Furthermore, counsel for the respondent argued that Mr.
Pulciani's testimony showed in fact that all the hours were
paid for, either through the use of an hour bank or under the
table. He noted that Mr. Pulciani had said that most of the
employees received money under the table.
[66] Counsel
for the respondent then pointed out that the documents adduced in
evidence, and primarily the weekly reports, contradict the
version given by the appellants. The reports show that the hour
bank system was used and that some hours were indeed carried over
and paid for as part of another period. However, the reports also
indicate that the hours entered in the payroll journal and the
hours not so entered were dealt with differently. Thus, while
regular hours were generally entered in the payroll journal at
the rate set out in the decree, the weekly reports show that
overtime was paid for at a rate lower than that required by the
decree.
[67] Counsel
for the respondent admitted that the weekly reports in which
there is more than one handwriting may have been prepared by more
than one person but said that they were prepared in the ordinary
course of the company's business. He argued that there is no
basis for thinking that they may have been completed, even in
part, during a subsequent year, contrary to the assumption put
forward by counsel for the appellants. Moreover, he stressed that
Mr. Candussi was not asked any questions about this, and
that, if he had wanted to build a defence for himself against
assessments totalling some $2.3 million, he would have gone all
the way and indicated the overtime rate provided for in the
decree in order to increase the amount of deductible expenses he
was claiming.
[68] Counsel
for the respondent pointed out that the use of the hour bank
system is identified in the weekly reports by circled figures
showing the hours carried forward, the advances and the payment
of arrears. For the overtime not dealt with in that way, the
weekly reports show a special rate that applied and the
calculation of the amount that was apparently paid. In fact, the
use of that special rate was, he said, the main part of the
arrangement involving under-the-table payments. In this regard,
counsel for the respondent noted the almost complete absence of
overtime in the payroll journal. In the case of the appellants,
there are only three entries: two for Mr. Pipia and one for
Mr. Ravagnolo. In Mr. Pipia's case, the special notation
"C.C.Q." appears in the corresponding weekly reports. In
Mr. Ravagnolo's case, the special notation [TRANSLATION]
"noted down" appears in the corresponding weekly
report. Counsel for the
respondent stressed the exceptional nature of those notations,
which correspond to the only overtime entered in the payroll
journal for the appellants.
[69] Counsel
for the respondent also pointed out that Mr. Léonard
checked some 10,000 to 12,000 documents concerning 40 or so
employees and that the validation exercises concerning the weekly
reports were performed using the payroll journal and the
individual work sheets, where such existed, as well as the ledger
in the case of the travel allowances. He noted as well that
PCMC's invoices to certain clients were checked to make sure
that the work periods actually corresponded to the work sites
shown in the weekly reports.
[70] In
short, argued counsel for the respondent, it was only after doing
many checks and because he was convinced that the weekly reports
were genuine, that Mr. Léonard authorized PCMC to deduct
additional expenses, namely the unreported wages.
[71] Thus,
counsel for the respondent maintained that he had adduced the
best evidence available in the circumstances given that he could
not file the originals of the documents that were obtained from
PCMC and subsequently returned. He noted the absence of other
documents, such as Mr. Candussi's black book.
[72] As
regards the decision in Esteves, supra, referred to
by counsel for the appellants, counsel for the respondent simply
observed that the workers' version must first be believed for
it to be concluded that they did not receive money under the
table. As for the decision in Firestone, supra,
counsel for the respondent expressed the view that it merely
established that people cannot create evidence themselves through
their own writings and he argued that the decision is not
relevant here because the evidence adduced by the respondent is
based on documents obtained from another person, namely
PCMC.
[73] With
respect to the penalty assessed under subsection 163(2) of the
Act, counsel for the respondent considered it justified
because the amounts paid were received personally and the income
was therefore knowingly not reported. He also noted that the
scheme lasted for many years, involved substantial amounts and
stopped only because of Revenue Canada's investigation. In
closing, he pointed out that Mr. Candussi had admitted that he
paid for work under the table and used the hour bank system-which
was contrary to another statute-because, as he said, it was a
matter of survival for him given the fierce competition in the
industry.
[74] I agree
with the respondent's position and am of the opinion that the
appeals must be dismissed.
[75] I will
begin by dealing briefly with the question of the admissibility
in evidence of the copies or, if you will, copies of copies of
documents that were obtained from PCMC in the circumstances
described above and subsequently returned to PCMC at its request.
In his testimony, Mr. Léonard of Revenue Canada said that
he himself made two photocopies of the documents obtained from
PCMC. He put one copy in the Department's vault and kept the
other to conduct his checks. That photocopy remained in the file
sent to the Department of Justice and was used to make enough
further photocopies for the hearings in the appeals. When he
testified, Mr. Léonard referred constantly to these last
copies, which he recognized as copies of the originals provided
by PCMC during his investigation. I have not the slightest doubt
that the original documents were not altered in the process. At
the hearing of the appeals, I referred to
subsection 231.5(1) of
the Act in support of my decision to accept the copies in
evidence. That provision reads as follows:
231.5(1) Copies - Where any document is seized, inspected,
examined or provided under sections 231.1 to 231.4, the person by
whom it is seized, inspected or examined or to whom it is
provided or any officer of the Department of National Revenue may
make, or cause to be made, one or more copies thereof and any
document purporting to be certified by the Minister or an
authorized person to be a copy made pursuant to this section is
evidence of the nature and content of the original document and
has the same probative force as the original document would have
if it had been proven in the ordinary way.
[76]
Moreover, subsection 30(11) and section 40 of the Canada
Evidence Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-5, provide as
follows:
30(11) The provisions of this section shall be deemed to
be in addition to and not in derogation of
(a) any other provision of this or any other Act of
Parliament respecting the admissibility in evidence of any record
or the proof of any matter; or
(b) any existing rule of law under which any record is
admissible in evidence or any matter may be proved.
40. In all proceedings over which Parliament has
legislative authority, the laws of evidence in force in the
province in which those proceedings are taken, including the laws
of proof of service of any warrant, summons, subpoena or other
document, subject to this Act and other Acts of Parliament, apply
to those proceedings.
[77] Given
the wording of subsection 30(11) and section 40 of the Canada
Evidence Act, it is my view that subsection 231.5(1) of the
Act is a specific provision of an Act of Parliament that
takes priority over any other rule and that it is applicable in
this case. I would simply add that it is wrong to argue generally
that copies cannot be adduced in evidence where the originals are
not available. From a common law standpoint, reference may be
made in this regard to the decision of the Supreme Court of
British Columbia in R. v. Clarkson, 99 DTC 5527.
From a civil law perspective, reference may be made to article
2860 of the Civil Code of Québec.
[78] As
regards the burden of proof, I note that it was up to the
respondent to prove that a reassessment could be made for the
years that would normally have been statute-barred, namely 1989,
1990 and 1991, on the ground that a misrepresentation had been
made that was attributable to neglect, carelessness or wilful
default or that fraud had been committed in filing the
returns.
[79] It was
likewise up to the respondent to prove that the penalties
assessed under subsection 163(2) of the Act for the four
years at issue, namely 1989 to 1992, were justified because the
appellants knowingly, or under circumstances amounting to gross
negligence, made a false statement in their returns. Strictly
speaking, therefore, each appellant bore only the burden of
proving that he did not receive unreported additional earnings in
1992.
[80] I also
consider it important to point out that the degree of proof
applicable in tax cases, as in all other civil cases, is the
balance of probabilities. That standard also applies to the
penalties.
[81] In this
regard, it is my view that the evidence adduced by the respondent
proves on much more than the mere balance of probabilities that
the appellants received but failed to report the amounts assessed
for each of the years at issue and that the misrepresentation
made in their tax returns for each of those years was made
knowingly. The most important pieces of that evidence are the
testimony of Mr. Léonard and Mr. Pulciani and all the
documents submitted in Exhibits I-1, I-3 and
I-10, which documents relate to Mr. Pipia,
Mr. Ravagnolo and Mr. Pulciani respectively.
[82]
Obviously, the basis of all the evidence adduced by the
respondent consists of the weekly reports relating to the
appellants and those regarding Mr. Pulciani. The appellants
never attempted to directly challenge the entries in those
reports concerning either regular hours or overtime, although
they had an opportunity to read the documents as soon as the
assessments were made, which was thus well before their appeals
were heard. Moreover, the accuracy of the entries in the weekly
reports was checked as regards not only the appellants but also
the 40 or so employees who worked for PCMC during the years at
issue. A careful review of the copies of the documents that were
obtained from PCMC by Mr. Léonard and adduced in
evidence certainly shows that the hour bank system was used for
certain hours and that, with rare exceptions, only regular hours
were entered in the payroll journal. Thus, payment for certain
hours was carried forward to another week and advances were
occasionally made by the employer. Furthermore, payment for
travel time in connection with work sites outside Montréal
was generally by cheque, as was the reimbursement of the travel
and other expenses related to those sites. As
Mr. Léonard established, the information in the
weekly reports is confirmed in the payroll journal where payment
for certain hours was carried forward or, conversely, where
advances were made. As for payment for travel time, although the
amounts paid by cheque were not assessed, the payment of those
amounts can be traced in the ledger under the item
"travelling expenses".
[83] As Mr.
Léonard showed, the overtime information in the weekly
reports is also consistent with the individual time sheets filled
out by the employees. In Mr. Ravagnolo's case, there are
26 such sheets, and the information on them corresponds to the
information in the weekly reports completed by the employer. In
the case of Mr. Pulciani, who made much greater use of the
individual time sheets, the information again corresponds to the
weekly reports. This is all to say that the weekly reports, which
Mr. Léonard analysed rigorously by comparing them with the
other documents given to him by PCMC, constitute, in my view,
reliable evidence from which it can be concluded that the amounts
shown for overtime were indeed paid to the appellants. The
entering of a total amount made up of the net amount paid for
regular hours according to the payroll journal and the gross
amount calculated for overtime strongly confirms the
respondent's argument that the total amount shown was indeed
paid to the appellants. In my view, no other inference is
possible, especially since the weekly reports show, where
applicable, that payment for certain hours of work in a given
week was carried over. It may therefore be
concluded that the total amount shown in each weekly report was
likely and probably paid to the employee.
[84] The
weekly reports contain a great number of details¾such as the use of the hour bank system to carry over hours
to other weeks or the payment by cheque for travel time outside
Montréal¾whose accuracy
can be verified in either the payroll journal or the ledger. This
circumstance renders totally implausible the assumption put
forward by counsel for the appellants, namely that part of the
reports-the part concerning overtime-may have been completed not
each week but several years later, either to comply with some
C.C.Q. regulation or to prepare a defence against a possible tax
assessment. In my view, that assumption is not supported by any
fact put in evidence. In fact, the possibility that part of the
weekly reports was prepared much later was not even broached with
Ms. Guénette and her brother, Michel Candussi, during
their cross-examination by counsel for the
appellants.
[85] Given
the evidence adduced by the respondent, I obviously cannot accept
the testimony of the appellants and their spouses, which not only
contradicts itself in some respects but is also directly
contradicted by the copies of the documents obtained from
PCMC.
[86] As an
example, I will simply refer to Mr. Pipia's statement that he
worked without pay and that he did not know what an hour bank was
when in fact he had benefited from the system for years.
Reference may also be made to Mr. Ravagnolo's statement
that he worked little overtime, even though his own individual
time sheets show more than 75 hours of overtime from October 6 to
December 23, 1989, a period of only two and a half months. Finally, the statement
by each appellant that travel time in connection with work sites
outside Montréal was not paid for is directly contradicted
by the extracts from PCMC's ledger that were adduced in
evidence.
[87] It is
not necessary to refer to Michel Candussi's testimony at any
great length. I have already mentioned the many contradictions
therein. His statement that the appellants worked only a little
overtime and that they may not have been paid if they said they
were not is once again directly contradicted by the documents
from PCMC that he himself submitted to Mr. Léonard. The
only thing that can really be taken from his testimony is that he
definitely did not pay for overtime at the rate he should have
paid pursuant to the decree and that, in general, only regular
hours were entered in the payroll journal. Aside from that, the
copies of the documents from PCMC adduced in evidence by the
respondent show that various systems were used to pay the
employees for their overtime, including the conversion of
overtime into regular hours, the hour bank and cash payment at an
agreed rate lower than the rate that should normally have
applied.
[88] In
short, it is my view that the evidence adduced by the respondent
proves, on a standard that goes beyond the mere balance of
probabilities, that the appellants received the amounts assessed
for the years at issue and that, since the amounts were received
in cash, it cannot be otherwise than knowingly that they decided
not to report them.
[89]
Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed with costs to the
respondent. However, as regards the costs awarded to the
respondent for the services of counsel for each day or part day
of hearing, only half of such costs are awarded in relation to
each appellant.
Signed at
Ottawa, Canada, this 19th day of March 2001.
J.T.C.C.
Translation
certified true on this 6th day of September 2002.
Erich Klein,
Revisor
[OFFICIAL
ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
97-2225(IT)G
BETWEEN:
FRANCESCO
PIPIA,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY
THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
Appeals
heard with the appeals of Alessio Ravagnolo
(97-2224(IT)G)
on November
20, 21, 22, 23 and 24, 2000,
at
Montréal, Quebec, by
the
Honourable Judge P. R. Dussault
Appearances
Counsel
for the Appellant: François Leduc
Counsel
for the
Respondent:
Simon-Nicolas Crépin
JUDGMENT
The appeals from the assessments made under the Income Tax
Act for the 1989, 1990, 1991 and 1992 taxation years are
dismissed with costs to the respondent. However, as regards the costs awarded to the
respondent for the services of counsel for each day or part day
of hearing, only half of such costs are awarded in relation to
each appellant. The whole in accordance with the attached Reasons
for Judgment.
Signed at
Ottawa, Canada, this 19th day of March 2001.
J.T.C.C.
Translation
certified true on this 6th day of September 2002.
Erich Klein,
Revisor
[OFFICIAL
ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
97-2224(IT)G
BETWEEN:
ALESSIO
RAVAGNOLO,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY
THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
Appeals
heard with the appeals of Francesco Pipia
(97-2225(IT)G)
on November
20, 21, 22, 23 and 24, 2000,
at
Montréal, Quebec, by
the
Honourable Judge P. R. Dussault
Appearances
Counsel
for the Appellant: François Leduc
Counsel
for the
Respondent:
Simon-Nicolas Crépin
JUDGMENT
The appeals
from the assessments made under the Income Tax Act for the
1989, 1990, 1991 and 1992 taxation years are dismissed with costs
to the respondent. However,
as regards the costs awarded to the respondent for the services
of counsel for each day or part day of hearing, only half of such
costs are awarded in relation to each appellant. The whole in
accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at
Ottawa, Canada, this 19th day of March 2001.
J.T.C.C.
Translation
certified true on this 6th day of September 2002.
Erich Klein,
Revisor
[OFFICIAL
ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
Email this Content