Date:
20121002
Docket: A-398-11
Citation: 2012 FCA 248
CORAM: PELLETIER
J.A.
TRUDEL J.A.
MAINVILLE J.A.
BETWEEN:
LARBI
ZOUAIMIA
Appellant
and
HER
MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
Heard at Ottawa,
Ontario, on October 2, 2012.
Judgment delivered
from the bench at Ottawa, Ontario, on October 2, 2012.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: TRUDEL
J.A.
Date:
20121002
Docket: A-398-11
Citation: 2012 FCA 248
CORAM: PELLETIER
J.A.
TRUDEL
J.A.
MAINVILLE
J.A.
BETWEEN:
LARBI ZOUAIMIA
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the bench
at Ottawa, Ontario, on October 2, 2012)
TRUDEL J.A.
[1]
Mr. Zouaimia
is appealing a decision (2011 TCC 436) of the Tax Court of Canada (the TCC)
dismissing with costs his appeals from reassessments made under the Income
Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.), for the 2003, 2004 and 2005
taxation years.
[2]
Mr. Zouaimia
advances many arguments regarding the delay in receiving the TCC judgment and regarding
as well the reasons of the trial judge. More specifically, Mr. Zouaimia is
challenging the accuracy of the assumptions of the Minister of Revenue (Minister)
on which the reassessments are based, such as the geographic area covered by
the T-11 taxi permit that he held and the average annual gross business income
generated under a taxi permit.
[3]
Mr. Zouaimia
is also challenging the projection method used by the Minister to establish his
additional business income.
[4]
Before
this Court, he reviewed several of the documents filed before the TCC by the
Minister, describing them as false (such as mechanical inspection certificates on
which there were odometer readings and which were not signed by the appellant)
or inaccurate (such as his fuel consumption in the last few years).
[5]
The
TCC judge had all of these documents before him. He concluded from his analysis
of them that the Minister had met his burden while the appellant had kept
neither books nor accounting records that could enlighten the Court concerning
his true financial situation.
[6]
Analysis
of the evidence is the trial judge’s responsibility, and this Court will
intervene only if it is satisfied that the judge made a palpable and overriding
error in his or her assessment (Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33,
[2002] 2 S.C.R. 235 at paragraph 36). Mr. Zouaimia did not demonstrate that
there was any such error.
[7]
As
to the resemblance of the reasons in the present case with those delivered by
the same judge in a similar case, but involving another taxpayer, and as to the
factual errors they may contain (such as the number of members of
Mr. Zouaimia’s family and his wife’s not having a job), we note that, while
these errors are regrettable, as is the delay in issuing the judgment under
appeal, there is nothing in the judgment on which we could base a conclusion
that the trial judge was not mindful of the relevant facts of the case in
drafting his reasons. We therefore decline Mr. Zouaimia’s invitation to
conclude that the principle of procedural fairness was violated.
[8]
In
short, in spite of Mr. Zouaimia’s many arguments, we have not been
persuaded that the TCC judge made an error of principle or of fact that would
warrant the intervention of this Court.
[9]
Accordingly,
this appeal will be dismissed with costs.
“Johanne
Trudel”
Certified
true translation
Erich
Klein
FEDERAL COURT OF
APPEAL
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-398-11
STYLE OF CAUSE: Larbi
Zouaimia v.
Her Majesty the Queen
PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa,
Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: October
2, 2012
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF
THE COURT BY: PELLETIER
J.A.
TRUDEL J.A.
MAINVILLE
J.A.
DELIVERED FROM THE
BENCH BY: TRUDEL
J.A.
APPEARANCES:
|
Larbi Zouaimia
|
REPRESENTING
HIMSELF
|
|
Frédérick Morand
Charles
Camirand
|
FOR
THE RESPONDENT
|
SOLICITORS
OF RECORD:
|
Myles J. Kirvan
Deputy
Attorney General of Canada
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|
Email this Content