Date:20001128
Docket:A-168-95
CORAM: STRAYER J.A.
ROTHSTEIN J.A.
SEXTON J.A.
BETWEEN:
CANADIAN ECONOMIC CONSULTANTS LTD.
Appellant
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
Heard at Toronto, Ontario, Tuesday, November 28, 2000
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario,
on Tuesday, November 28, 2000
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: STRAYER J.A.
Date: 20001128
Docket: A-168-95
CORAM: STRAYER J.A.
ROTHSTEIN J.A.
SEXTON J.A.
BETWEEN:
CANADIAN ECONOMIC CONSULTANTS LTD.
Appellant
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario
on Tuesday, November 28, 2000)
STRAYER J.A.
| _. We are all of the view that the appeal must be dismissed. |
| _. The appellant objects to the ruling by the Tax Court Judge by which he refused to admit certain documentary evidence. It appears from the transcript of the trial that one of the reasons for refusal by the Trial Judge to admit certain unspecified documents was the result of an objection by counsel for the Minister. Counsel argued that these documents had not been referred to in the list of documents of either party, and also raised objections to their relevance and probative value. The Trial Judge did not specify on what ground he upheld the objection to admissibility. |
| _. Paragraph 89(1)(a) of the Tax Court Rules says that no document shall be used in evidence by a party unless: |
| (a) reference to it appears in the pleadings, or in a list or an affidavit filed and served by a party to the proceeding ... |
| _. There was no mention in the appellant's Rule 81 list of documents for discovery of the cheque stubs, Visa statements and other documents which he apparently wished to introduce as evidence. Counsel for the appellant argued before us, however, that since item 5 of the respondent's list of documents described a letter from the appellant to Revenue Canada dated June 30, 1989, any documents referred to in that letter must be taken to be referred to in the Minister's list of documents. He then attempted to demonstrate to us that various of those documents mentioned in that letter should have been admitted by the Tax Court Judge. |
| _. We need not decide the issue of whether a document, referred to in a document included in a list of documents for discovery, must itself be considered referred to in that list. It is sufficient to say that even if that were the case, counsel has not been able to demonstrate to us which specific documents his clients would have introduced in the absence of the Tax Court Judge's Ruling and of those which ones were referred to in the letter of June 30, 1989, nor how the admission of those documents would in any way have affected the outcome of the case. Nor is there any indication in the transcript that the appellant representing himself ever raised an objection to the Trial Judge's ruling or offered any argument in favour of admissibility. We are satisfied that the Tax Court Judge acted correctly in ruling as he did. |
| _. The appeal will, therefore, be dismissed with costs. |
"B. L. Strayer"
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
DOCKET: A-168-95
| STYLE OF CAUSE: CANADIAN ECONOMIC CONSULTANTS LTD. |
Appellant
- and -
Respondent
DATE OF HEARING: TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 2000
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
| OF THE COURT BY: STRAYER J.A. |
Delivered at Toronto, Ontario on Tuesday, November 28, 2000
APPEARANCES: Mr. A. C. Gerstl
Ms. M. Boris
For the Respondent
| SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Allen C. Gerstl |
Box 22, 2112-401 Bay Street
Toronto, Ontario
M5H 2YA
| Deputy Attorney General of Canada |
Date: 20001128
Docket: A-168-95
BETWEEN:
| CANADIAN ECONOMIC CONSULTANTS LTD. |
Appellant
- and -
Respondent
Email this Content