Date: 20100420
Docket: A-183-09
A-184-09
A-185-09
A-186-09
Citation: 2010 FCA 108
CORAM: BLAIS C.J.
NADON J.A.
SHARLOW J.A.
A-183-09
BETWEEN:
REEMA
MCGONAGLE
Appellant
and
HER
MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
A-184-09
BETWEEN:
RABINDER
PARIHAR
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
A-185-09
BETWEEN:
AAREMIC
TRAVEL CORP.
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
A-186-09
BETWEEN:
RANDY PARIHAR
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
Heard at Vancouver,
British Columbia, on April 20,
2010.
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Vancouver, British Columbia, on April 20, 2010.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: SHARLOW
J.A.
Date:
20100420
Docket: A-183-09
A-184-09
A-185-09
A-186-09
Citation: 2010
FCA 108
CORAM: BLAIS
C.J.
NADON
J.A.
SHARLOW
J.A.
BETWEEN:
REEMA MCGONAGLE
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY
THE QUEEN
Respondent
A-184-09
BETWEEN:
RABINDER
PARIHAR
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
A-185-09
BETWEEN:
AAREMIC
TRAVEL CORP.
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
A-186-09
BETWEEN:
RANDY PARIHAR
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE
COURT
(Delivered
from the Bench at Vancouver, British Columbia, on April
20, 2010)
SHARLOW J.A.
[1]
This is a
consolidated appeal of four judgments of the Tax Court of Canada (2009 TCC 168)
granting the Crown’s motion to quash income tax appeals for 1996, 1997 and 1998
for Reema McGonagle, Rabinder Parihar and Aaremic Travel Corp., and for 1997
and 1998 for Randy Parihar, on the basis that each of the appellants had
waived, in writing, the right to appeal the reassessments for those years. The
appellants had argued in the Tax Court that the waivers were invalid by reason
of coercion, because the tax auditor threatened to close their files if the
waivers were not signed, and did not allow the appellants enough time to
consult with their tax adviser.
[2]
It is
undisputed that the judge cited the applicable jurisprudence, in particular Smerchanski
v. Minister of National Revenue, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 23, Nguyen v. Canada,
2005 TCC 697, and Anthony v. Canada, 2007 TCC 606. It is also undisputed
that, if the waivers are valid, the appeals are barred by subsection 169(2.2)
of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.).
[3]
The
appellants argue that the judge misapprehended the evidence and therefore
misapplied the applicable legal principles when he determined that there was no
coercion. This is a challenge to the judge’s factual conclusions, which must be
reviewed by this Court on the basis of palpable and overriding error.
[4]
Despite
the able submissions of counsel for the appellants, our review of the record
discloses no basis for appellate intervention. In our view, the evidence before
the judge supported his findings of fact and his conclusion that the waivers
were valid. It follows that these appeals must be dismissed. The respondent is
entitled to one set of costs.
"K. Sharlow"
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-183-09
A-184-09
A-185-09
A-186-09
APPEAL
FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE TAX COURT OF CANADA DATED MARCH 24, 2009, (2009 TCC
168).
STYLE OF CAUSE: Reema McGonagle v. Her Majesty
the Queen
Rabinder Parihar v. Her
Majesty the Queen
Aaremic
Travel Corp. v. Her Majesty the Queen
Randy
Parihar v. Her Majesty the Queen
PLACE OF HEARING: Vancouver,
British Columbia
DATE OF HEARING: April 20, 2010
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE
COURT BY: BLAIS C.J.,
NADON, SHARLOW JJ.A.
DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: SHARLOW J.A.
APPEARANCES:
|
George I. Douvelos
|
FOR
THE APPELLANTS
|
|
Bruce Senkpiel
Selina
Sit
|
FOR
THE RESPONDENT
|
SOLICITORS
OF RECORD:
|
Davison Wiebe Douvelos LLP
Vancouver,
BC
|
FOR THE APPELLANTS
|
|
Myles Kirvan
Deputy
Attorney General of Canada
|
FOR
THE RESPONDENT
|
Email this Content