[1] Since Bowman A.C.J. rendered his judgment against the applicants on March 15, 2001, the Supreme Court of Canada has issued its decision in the case of 2002 SCC 46">Stewart v. Canada, 2002 SCC 46, [2002] S.C.J. No. 46 (QL).

[2] Both parties agree that the decision of Bowman A.C.J. should be set aside on that basis.

[3] What remains to be decided is the issue of quantum of expenses to be deducted.

[4] Considering that Bowman A.C.J. made no finding on this issue, the matter will be returned to him for a determination of this issue. Additional evidence may be adduced by the parties in this regard. The applicants will be entitled to their costs in this Court.

[5] The application for judicial review will therefore be allowed, the decision of Bowman A.C.J. will be set aside and the matter will be remitted to Bowman A.C.J. to determine, after receipt of such further evidence as the parties may elect to present, the quantum of deductions of expenses. The whole with costs to the applicants in this Court.

"Alice Desjardins"

J.A.

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET: A-262-01

STYLE OF CAUSE: Jo-Ann Elke and Steven Hiscock v. Her Majesty the Queen

PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, Ontario

DATE OF HEARING: February 11, 2003

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: (Richard C.J., Desjardins & Rothstein JJ.A.)

RENDERED FROM THE BENCH BY: Desjardins J.A.

APPEARANCES:

Mr. Emilio Binavince and Ms. Helen Lanctôt FOR THE APPLICANTS

Mr. Roger Leclaire FOR THE RESPONDENT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Binavince Smith

Ottawa, Ontario FOR THE APPLICANTS

Mr. Morris Rosenberg

Deputy Attorney General of Canada FOR THE RESPONDENT

You are here

Elke v. Canada, 2003 FCA 73

Citations2003 FCA 73

Case tabs

Citations
2003 FCA 73