Date:
20030210
Docket:
A-645-00
Neutral
Citation: 2003 FCA 69
CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A.
LÉTOURNEAU
J.A.
NADON
J.A.
BETWEEN:
MARIO
PARADIS
Applicant
and
MINISTER
OF
NATIONAL
REVENUE
Respondent
Hearing
held at Montréal, Quebec, on February 6, 2003.
Judgment delivered at Ottawa,
Ontario, on February 10, 2003.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT: LÉTOURNEAU
J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: DESJARDINS
J.A.
NADON
J.A.
Date:
20030210
Docket:
A-645-00
Neutral
Citation: 2003 FCA 69
CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A.
LÉTOURNEAU
J.A.
NADON J.A.
BETWEEN:
MARIO
PARADIS
Applicant
and
MINISTER
OF
NATIONAL
REVENUE
Respondent
REASONS
FOR JUDGMENT
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
[1]
It is clear that the applicant, who acted on his own behalf with the
help of a friend both here and before the Tax Court of Canada, did not
understand all the ramifications of the issue, which are not limited, as he
apparently believed, to determining the legal status of the business that
suffered the losses.
[2]
The litigation dealt with claims made by the appellant for business
losses. These claims were for the 1995 and 1996 taxation years. The Minister of
National Revenue refused to allocate any loss incurred by the corporation
“3029786 Canada Inc.” to the appellant. The accuracy of the amount of expenses
claimed by the appellant and his right to deduct them were at the heart of the
litigation generated by the Minister’s notice of assessment.
[3]
Essentially, Judge Dussault of the Tax Court of Canada made two
conclusions.
[4]
First, the above-mentioned corporation was a corporation under the Canada
Business Corporations Act (the Act). The judge did not err in that
conclusion. The corporation was incorporated on May 14, 1994, under that Act,
as set out in the articles of incorporation in the record: see the respondent’s
record at page 34. It had a head office and a director. The applicant admitted
before the judge that a bank account had been opened in the name of the
corporation, and that transactions had been made on the account.
[5]
Secondly, Judge Dussault concluded that no evidence had been adduced
that the loss claimed for the 1996 year had been incurred. With respect to the
1995 taxation year, the judge found and ruled that the documents submitted did
not correspond with what had been claimed as a loss. There is no basis in the
record or in the evidence to set aside those conclusions of the judge.
[6]
The applicant denies that he is a corporation, and cites article 1525 of
the Code of Civil Procedure of Québec in support of his contention that
he is an enterprise. I concur with Judge Dussault that the applicant misunderstands
the concept of enterprise and, I would add, the purpose of article 1525.
[7]
For these reasons, I would dismiss the application for judicial review
with costs.
“Gilles Létourneau”
J.A.
“I concur with these reasons.
Alice Desjardins J.A.”
“I concur.
M. Nadon J.A.”
Certified true translation
Mary Jo Egan, LLB
FEDERAL
COURT OF CANADA
APPEAL
DIVISION
SOLICITORS
OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-645-00
STYLE OF
CAUSE: MARIO PARADIS v. MINISTER OF NATIONAL
REVENUE
PLACE OF
HEARING: MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC
DATE OF
HEARING: February 6, 2003
REASONS
FOR JUDGMENT: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
CONCURRED
IN BY: DESJARDINS J.A.
NADON J.A.
DATED: February
10, 2003
APPEARANCES:
Mario Paradis FOR
HIMSELF
Robert
Lendick FOR
THE APPLICANT
Mournes Ayadi FOR
THE RESPONDENT
Valérie Tardif
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Mario
Paradis FOR
HIMSELF
St-Hyacinthe, Quebec
Robert Lendick FOR
THE APPLICANT
St-Hyacinthe, Quebec
Minister of Justice FOR
THE RESPONDENT
Montréal, Quebec
Email this Content