Date: 20000411
Docket: A-389-98
CORAM: DÉCARY J.A.
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
NOËL J.A.
BETWEEN:
CLAUDE F. ARCHAMBAULT,
Appellant,
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
Hearing held at Montréal, Quebec on Tuesday, April 11, 2000
Judgment from the bench at Montréal, Quebec on Tuesday, April 11, 2000
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
Date: 20000411
Docket: A-389-98
CORAM: DÉCARY J.A.
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
NOËL J.A.
BETWEEN:
CLAUDE F. ARCHAMBAULT,
Appellant,
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the bench at Montréal,
Quebec on Tuesday, April 11, 2000)
LÉTOURNEAU J.
[1] Despite her excellent argument, counsel for the appellant, Virginie Paquet, did not persuade us that Tremblay-Lamer J. made an error justifying our intervention.1 The Trial Division judge concluded that the appellant was not credible as to the time he said he spent operating his farm. In this regard, there was sufficient evidence in the record to allow her to reach such a conclusion and, in the circumstances, it is not for this Court on appeal to become involved in such a question of credibility.
[2] She also was of the opinion that the appellant could not have derived his main source of income from farming alone, or from a combination of farming and his profession as a lawyer. The record disclosed that the appellant incurred farm losses for the taxation years at issue, namely 1977 to 1980, and did not operate a farm of a size that would allow him to reach the threshold of profitability. Further, the appellant filed no development plan to indicate to the Court that he was in a position to obtain his principal source of income from the farm, either exclusively or in combination with the practice of law.
[3] As to the admissions which the judge characterized as formal, and on which she rejected an application to withdraw, we do not feel that she misunderstood the nature of the actions taken by counsel for the appellant at the time. The latter told the Court at the examination for discovery that he no longer intended to challenge the penalties for late filing of the appellant's tax returns. He accordingly acknowledged the validity of that part of the assessment.
[4] The transcript is at first sight more ambiguous regarding the capital gain reported by the taxpayer in 1980, for which the Minister of National Revenue issued an assessment notice. However, when it is read with reference to the relevant provisions of the appeal filed by the appellant in the Trial Division and his own income statement for 1980, it becomes clear that the appellant informed the Court that he no longer wished to challenge what he had himself reported as a capital gain in his tax return for the 1980 taxation year.
[5] We cannot conclude that Tremblay-Lamer J. did not exercise her discretion judicially in refusing to allow the withdrawal of these admissions.
[6] For these reasons, the appeal will be dismissed with costs.
Gilles Létourneau
J.A.
Certified true translation
Martine Brunet, LL. B.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
APPEAL DIVISION
Date: 20000411
Docket: A-389-98
BETWEEN:
CLAUDE F. ARCHAMBAULT
Appellant,
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
OF THE COURT
| NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD |
| APPEAL FROM TRIAL DIVISION JUDGMENT |
| ON MAY 12, 1998 IN FILE T-1643-83 |
| STYLE OF CAUSE: CLAUDE F. ARCHAMBAULT |
| PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, QUEBEC |
| DATE OF HEARING: TUESDAY, APRIL 11, 2000 |
| REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY LÉTOURNEAU J.A. |
| APPEARANCES: Virginie Paquet |
| SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Claude F. Archambault et associés |
| Deputy Attorney General of Canada |
| Montréal, Quebec, Tuesday, April 11, 2000 |
| The appeal is dismissed with costs. |
| Certified true translation |
__________________
1 The trial decision was reported at 98 D.T.C. 6323.
Email this Content