Pugh v. Canada, 2008 FCA 7

Date: 20080110

Docket: A-83-07

Citation: 2008 FCA 7

CORAM:       DÉCARY J.A.

                        LÉTOURNEAU J.A.            

                        NADON J.A.

BETWEEN:

HAYDN PUGH

Appellant

and

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Respondent

Heard at Montréal, Quebec, on January 8, 2008.

Judgment delivered at Montréal, Quebec, on January 10, 2008.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:                                                                               NADON J.A.

CONCURRED IN BY:                                                                                                DÉCARY J.A.

                                                                                                                          LÉTOURNEAU J.A.

Date: 20080110

Docket: A-83-07

Citation: 2008 FCA 7

CORAM:       DÉCARY J.A.

                        LÉTOURNEAU J.A.

                        NADON J.A.

BETWEEN:

HAYDN PUGH

Appellant

and

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

NADON J.A.

[1]               This is an appeal from a decision of Madam Justice Lamarre Proulx of the Tax Court of Canada dated January 19, 2007 which dismissed the appellant’s appeal from the Minister’s assessment of his 2000 taxation year.

[2]               More particularly, the appeal pertains to the 1989 market value of a rental building owned by the appellant in St. Lambert, Province of Quebec, which the Tax Court judge found was $50,000.

[3]               The appellant takes the position that the market value was $175,000 while the Minister supports the value found by the judge.

[4]               I am of the view that there is no basis whatsoever to interfere with the Tax Court’s decision. The judge clearly found the 1989 value of the building to be $50,000 on the basis of the evidence before her, namely: (i) municipal evaluations for the years 1985 and 1994 which respectively set the value of the building at $53,700 and $40,100 and (ii) an out-of-court settlement between the appellant and the Minister relating to the appellant’s taxation years 1992 to 1994 where the value was agreed at $50,000.

[5]               Before the Tax Court, the appellant, upon whom the burden of proof lied, did not adduce any evidence to prove that the fair market value of his building was $175,000 in 1989, nor did he bring any evidence to support a value greater than $50,000.

[6]               Consequently, as I am satisfied that Madam Justice Lamarre Proulx made no error of law nor any palpable and overriding error in assessing the evidence before her, I would dismiss the appeal with costs.

      “Marc Nadon”

“I agree.

            Robert Décary J.A.”

“I agree.

            Gilles Létourneau J.A.”

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                                                                              A-83-07

(Appeal from the decision of the Tax Court of Canada dated January 19, 2007 in file

2005-1869(IT)G.)

STYLE OF CAUSE:                                                              HAYDN PUGH  v.

                                                                                                HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

PLACE OF HEARING:                                                        Montréal, Quebec

DATE OF HEARING:                                                          January 8, 2008

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:                                     NADON J.A.

CONCURRED IN BY:                                                         DÉCARY J.A.

                                                                                                LÉTOURNEAU J.A.

DATED:                                                                                 January 10, 2008

APPEARANCES:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: