Vrabek v. Canada, docket A-380-96

     A-380-96

CORAM:      THE CHIEF JUSTICE

         STONE, J.A.

         LINDEN, J.A.

Between:

     MARIE L. VRABEK

     Applicant

     - and -

     HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

     Respondent

     REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

     (Delivered from the Bench at Vancouver, BC

     on Tuesday, March 18, 1997)

LINDEN, J.A.

     We have not been persuaded that the Tax Court Judge erred in arriving at the decision in this case.

     Given that there was no request for an adjournment, it cannot be said that there was a denial of natural justice in these circumstances by the Judge failing to suggest that an adjournment might be sought in order to prepare better documentary evidence. Even though the informal procedure was used, it was up to the taxpayer to prepare the necessary documentation for the hearing.

     There was no evidence adduced as to the "exact dimensions" of any possible incompetence of the taxpayer's agent, a Chartered Accountant, who presented the case to the Court, nor that such incompetence contributed to the outcome. In fact, some considerable success was achieved as a result of the presentation.

     The Tax Court Judge did not lay down as a prerequisite for proving income or deductions the requirement of keeping books and records; he was merely indicating the advisability of doing so, if the taxpayer hoped to convince the Court of the propriety of his income figures and deductions. The Tax Court Judge demonstrated his own understanding of the law when he allowed certain deductions and amendments to the reassessment, even without any documentary support for doing so, purely on the basis of oral evidence presented.

     In making the factual error to the effect that the taxpayer was a Chartered Accountant, the Tax Court Judge did not require a higher standard of proof from the taxpayer. The minor factual slip was understandable given the fact that: 1) the taxpayer earned professional fees for doing accounting and bookkeeping work for others; 2) she testified that she was "an accountant"; and 3) the taxpayer was represented at the hearing by a Chartered Accountant as her agent. This trivial mistake did not affect result of the case and certainly did not amount to a finding of fact made in a "perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material" as required by Section 18.1(4)(d) of the Federal Court Act.

     We do not wish to leave this case without mentioning a procedural issue which arose. Counsel for the applicant filed a "Supplementary Application Record" which consisted solely of additional legal argument, purporting to do so pursuant to Rule 1608. This rule does not authorize additional legal argument to be filed, but rather is meant to permit a party to file additional factual evidence to meet the Respondent's case, if thought to be advisable.

     The application will be dismissed.

                             (Sgd.) "A.M. Linden"

                                     J.A.