Date: 20070221
Docket: A-518-06
Citation: 2007 FCA 78
Present: LÉTOURNEAU
J.A.
BETWEEN:
AMETHYST GREENHOUSES LTD.
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
[1]
The
appellant seeks by motion an order, the conclusions of which are as follows:
A) TO NULLIFY JEOPARDY
ORDERS AND REVERSE JUDGMENT ORDERS OBTAINED BY FRAUD! (Seized funds to be
returned immediately.)
B) To provide equal
funding including overhead to the appellant in order to obtain FIAT JUSTITIA
RUAT COELUM.
C) To allow appellant
to conduct appeal until funds available to hire a team of honest professionals
including a lawyer. (Rule 120)
D) To allow appeal
documents as requested on November 28, 2006 fax.
E) To declare that
Amethyst Farms Ltd, Amethyst Greenhouses Ltd, Elizabeth Houweling, and Paul
Houweling cannot be dealt with separately. See 85/411 and 86/411.
F) To set up an INQUIRY
into the fraud and corruption which has allowed this mess to happen.
[2]
The motion
is made by Mr. Paul Houweling on behalf of the appellant. He represented the
appellant before the Tax Court of Canada where the appellant’s motion for an
order setting aside the judgment of Little J. dated August 22, 2006 was only
partly successful.
[3]
The motion
as drafted and developed by the appellant makes little sense. The incoherent
material filed in support of the motion does not fare any better. Not unlike
the respondent, I nonetheless can see two conclusions of the motion that I need
to address.
[4]
The first
one relates to item D). It is a demand to introduce new evidence, that is to
say evidence that was not before the Tax Court of Canada when it rendered its
decision.
[5]
In a
related case involving himself, Mr. Houweling filed a motion to introduce new
evidence. The motion was denied by Sharlow J.A.: see Houweling v. Her
Majesty the Queen, A-493-05. At paragraph 2 of her Order she wrote:
The appeal is from a
judgment of the Tax Court of Canada which dismissed the appellant’s appeal on
the basis that the appellant had not met the onus of establishing that his
income tax assessment was wrong in law or in fact. The proposed new evidence
consists of a large volume of pages, some of which are parts of larger documents,
most of which are not identified or explained. It appears that the appellant
has numerous complaints relating to the transaction that resulted in the tax
assessment and other matters, but I am unable to discern from the appellant’s
material any connection between those events and the correctness of his income
tax assessment. I am compelled to conclude that the appellant has failed to
demonstrate that any of the proposed new evidence is relevant or conclusive of
an issue raised in this appeal.
[6]
The same
remarks can be made with respect to the material that the appellant seeks to
introduce. Relevancy to the issues in dispute is not evident. The criteria
regarding the admissibility of new evidence are not discussed and certainly do
not appear to be met. Nothing would be gained in terms of justice, fairness and
efficiency by admitting this evidence.
[7]
Mr.
Houweling seeks this Court’s authorization to represent the appellant in the
appeal proceedings: see item C) of the conclusions of the appellant’s motion.
Rule 120 of the Federal Courts Rules states that a corporation must be
represented by a solicitor unless the Court in special circumstances
grants leave to it to be represented by an officer, partner or member, as the
case may be (emphasis added). It is not readily and immediately ascertainable
from the disorganized material before me if Mr. Houweling meets the
requirements of Rule 120 regarding the status of the representative.
[8]
Furthermore,
I have not been informed of any special circumstance that would justify
derogating from the wisdom of Rule 120.
[9]
Finally,
Mr. Houweling represented himself in file A-493-05, previously cited, before
this Court and the Tax Court of Canada. The experience was far from being
conclusive and productive. At paragraph 5 of the reasons for judgment, Malone
J.A. wrote:
During the course of the
trial, Bowman C.J. extended to Mr. Houweling every opportunity to abandon his
irrelevant assertions regarding a purported fraud (over which the Tax Court of
Canada had no jurisdiction) and to focus on the section 85 election and
assessment issues. This he also failed to do. In the end, Mr. Houweling
admitted during his examination-in-chief that the assessments under appeal were
correct.
[10]
Sheridan J. of the Tax Court of Canada
experienced the same difficulty with the performance of Mr. Houweling
representing the appellant in the proceedings before the Tax Court. She
complained in the following words at paragraph 10 of her reasons for judgment:
The Notice of Appeal is
drafted in the same rambling and incoherent style as the “affidavit” filed on
behalf of the Appellant in this motion, making it difficult, if not impossible,
to discern on what basis the Appellant challenges the Minister’s assessments.
At the hearing of this motion, I invited Mr. Houweling to enlarge upon the
material in the Appellant’s Notice of Appeal. He admitted that the Appellant
did not file any income tax returns during the taxation years in question. The
gist of his appeal seems to be that the difficulties with his brother (and
perhaps others) made it impossible for the Appellant to furnish the information
required in the return and his own personal beliefs prevented him from signing
what, if incomplete, he believed would be a “false” document. Further, the
Appellant has not kept adequate books and records. He also blamed CRA officials
for failing to help him complete his returns, expressing his belief that they
were well aware of what was needed, of the difficulties he was having with his
brother, of the allegations of fraud and conspiracy and of the negative impact
this had on his ability to report the Appellant’s income. None of this provides
any reasonable basis for an appeal. The Appellant has the onus of proving wrong
the Minister’s assumptions. Without any supporting documentation and given Mr.
Houweling’s admitted inability to provide the financial details of the
Appellant’s business operations, I am unable to conclude that the Notice of
Appeal discloses an arguable case in respect of the 1999, 2000 and 2001 appeals.
[11]
For these
reasons, the appellant’s motion will be dismissed with costs.
“Gilles
Létourneau”
Email this Content