2013 FCA 30
CORAM: EVANS J.A.
MAJESTY THE QUEEN
at Vancouver, British Columbia, on February 6, 2013.
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Vancouver, British Columbia, on February 6, 2013.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
BY: DAWSON J.A.
2013 FCA 30
MAJESTY THE QUEEN
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
OF THE COURT
from the Bench at Vancouver, British Columbia, on February 6, 2013)
is an appeal from an order rendered by the Tax Court of Canada on August 22,
2011, in Court Docket: 2011-852 (IT) I. The order quashed, without costs, an
appeal brought by the appellant relating to reassessments made under the Income
Tax Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I (5th. Supp.) (Act) for the 2006
through 2009 taxation years. The Tax Court quashed the appeal primarily on the
basis that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the
appellant had not served notices of objection in respect of the reassessments.
appellant characterizes the issues raised on this appeal to be:
My fundamental rights and
freedoms as held in Trust by the Crown in Right of Canada are non-negotiable
and are not to be usurped by Colour of Law and the designation of the natural
person without right. I have an inalienable and lawful entitlement to the
principles of common law and that as also accorded by the Canadian Bill of
Rights. I have the right to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment
of property, the right to equality before the law and the protection of the law
nor to find myself the subject of cruel and unusual treatment and punishment.
I have found myself subject to
fraud and extortion by agencies of government and when in defence against these
criminal acts, demand that my rights be acknowledged, do find these government
officials who have sworn to serve, ranged against me enforcing their Colour of
Law and inflicting great financial and emotional harm upon this Man and
pensioner of limited means.
These agencies of government have
also failed to act with due diligence as would be demanded by this Court in the
preparation of an Audit of Obligation attesting that all prerequisite legal
requirements including an audit sworn under the penalty of perjury proving
claim and proof of loss prior to serving of a “Requirement to Pay” or
“Statutory Set-Off”. In addition, these agencies of government have failed to
produce when so demanded, proof that this adult man in full unlimited capacity
is subject to and without right to the Crown in Right of Canada or of a
The Government of Canada through
the Minister of National Revenue and its officers are bound by the CANADIAN
CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS and as Trustee’s of the Trust have failed to act
with integrity, in a non-partisan manner, have been entirely without care, high
handed, discriminatory, intentional and indifferent to the consequences by
unreasonable and or imprudent actions, are in violation of their oath to serve
and are in dishonour.
the following two reasons, we are all of the view that the appellant has not
demonstrated any error by the Tax Court that would permit us to grant his
under section 169 of the Act, a taxpayer must serve a notice of objection on a
timely basis in order to proceed with an appeal to the Tax Court. Put another
way, service of a notice of objection is a condition precedent to the
institution of an appeal to the Tax Court (Bormann v. Canada, 2006 FCA 83, 2006 DTC 6147, at paragraph 3). The evidence before the Tax Court showed that
the appellant had failed to file any notice of objection. The Judge made no
error in concluding that in that circumstance the Tax Court had no jurisdiction
to hear the appeal. Mr. Ballantyne’s refusal to open communications from
the Canada Revenue Agency sent to his home address does not justify his failure
to serve notices of objection in accordance with the Act.
the Tax Court draws its jurisdiction from statute. On an appeal under
subsection 169(1) of the Act it may only grant the relief provided in
section 171 of the Act. The Judge made no error in his characterization of the
relief sought by the appellant in the Tax Court. Nor did the Judge err in law
when he concluded the Tax Court could not grant the relief sought by the
appellant. The appellant conceded in oral argument that he was in the wrong
court for the relief he seeks.
these reasons, the appeal will be dismissed with costs fixed in the lump sum of
$1,250.00, inclusive of disbursements and any applicable taxes.
FEDERAL COURT OF
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
(APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HERSHFIELD DATED AUGUST 22, 2011, DOCKET NO.
STYLE OF CAUSE: Keith R. Ballantyne v.
Her Majesty the Queen
PLACE OF HEARING: Vancouver, British Columbia
DATE OF HEARING: February
REASONS FOR JUDGMENTOF
THE COURT BY: Evans,
Dawson, Stratas JJ.A.
DELIVERED FROM THE
BENCH BY: Dawson J.A.
R. Ballantyne, on his own behalf
Froese and Nadine Taylor Pickering
William F. Pentney,
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Vancouver, British Columbia
FOR THE RESPONDENT