[1] The appellant appeals from a Judgment of the Tax Court of Canada allowing his appeals in part for the 1993, 1994 and 1996 taxation years and dismissing his appeals with respect to the 1992 and 1997 taxation years.

[2] The appellant did not appear at the hearing of the appeal despite having been duly notified. This appeal is being disposed of on the basis of the appellant's written submissions and the submissions made by the respondent at the hearing.

[3] The Judgment under appeal was issued in conformity with an agreement reached by the parties at the hearing on March 10, 2003. At that time, the appellant's mother, acting as his representative, agreed that specified amounts were properly included in the appellant's income for the years in issue. The respondent, on the other hand, conceded that additional deductions were available to the appellant for the 1993, 1994 and 1996 taxation years.

[4] In support of the appeal, the appellant's mother claims in her representative capacity that the consent which she gave in the Court below was not valid. She says that at the time of her appeal to the Tax Court she had recently suffered an injury and was under medication; there had also been two deaths of close relatives in the weeks preceding the hearing. In addition, she was in the middle of writing a comprehensive Ph.D. examination. She adds that she was intimidated by the Tax Court Judge.

[5] The appellant's mother submits that the Tax Court Judge erred in accepting her consent without requiring the respondent to provide the appropriate documentation (T5 slips) to support the assessment of the additional amounts agreed to in open court. She asks that this Court order the respondent to produce the supporting documentation.

[6] In my view, the stressful situation and the intimidation which the appellant's mother alleges are not sufficient to vitiate the consent that she gave.

[7] I recognize that it is not easy for a lay person to act as a party's representative in Court proceedings. But that is not, in and of itself, a ground for discarding the consent that was given. In particular, there is no evidence of duress or abuse of process. To the extent that T5 slips were required before the appellant's mother could give a valid consent as is now being claimed, it was incumbent upon her to make that known during the hearing.

[8] I would add that it does not assist the appellant to claim before us that the validity of the assessments hinges on the production by the respondent of the relevant T-5 slips. The burden in that regard rested on the appellant.

[9] I would dismiss the appeal with costs.

"Marc Noël"

J.A.

"I agree.

Marshall Rothstein, J.A."

"I agree.

John M. Evans, J.A."

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET: A-379-03

STYLE OF CAUSE: JAMES VENNERI v.

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO

DATE OF HEARING: TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2005

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT NOËL J.A.

CONCURRED IN BY: ROTHSTEIN J.A.

EVANS J.A.

DATED: FEBRUARY 8, 2005

APPEARANCES:

No one appeared FOR THE APPELLANT

Mr. Steven Leckie FOR THE RESPONDENT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Mrs. Rose Venneri FOR THE APPELLANT

St. Catharines, Ontario

John Sims, Q.C. FOR THE RESPONDENT

Deputy Attorney General of Canada

Ottawa, Ontario

You are here

Venneri v. Canada, 2005 FCA 53

Citations2005 FCA 53

Case tabs

Citations
2005 FCA 53