[1] The applicant seeks the judicial review of a decision of Lamarre J.T.C.C. which allowed, in part, its appeal against an assessment for the 2001 taxation year.

[2] At the hearing before the Tax Court, counsel for the respondent conceded that a sum of $914.00, representing contributions to the Canada Pension Plan paid in 2001 for salary earned in previous years, was related to scientific research and experimental development (SR & ED) and should be accepted as an SR & ED expenditure. However, the learned judge rejected the applicant's contention that the entire salary of $28,080.00 paid in 2001 to its sole employee, Dr. Sen who is also the president of the company, was an eligible SR & ED expenditure. It is this part of the decision which is now contested.

[3] In judicial review proceedings, the power of the reviewing Court with respect to findings of facts is limited. Such findings cannot be reviewed and overturned unless they have been made in a perverse or capricious manner. In the present instance, the Tax Court judge found, as a fact, that Dr. Sen worked on the entire project for which a SR & ED expenditure was claimed. She also ruled that Dr. Sen's salary was paid for his work for the entire project, but that only 25% of the activities of the project qualified as an eligible SR & ED expenditure. Therefore, she concluded that only 25% of the salary paid to Dr. Sen was attributable to an eligible SR & ED activity.

[4] There was sufficient evidence to support the findings and conclusions of the Tax Court judge. I do not doubt the commitment of Dr. Sen to the project undertaken by the applicant and the sincerity of his beliefs in bringing this application for judicial review. However, this Court is bound by the record and the evidence it contains as well as the legal principles applicable to judicial review proceedings.

[5] For these reasons, I would dismiss the application for judicial review without costs.

"Gilles Létourneau"

J.A.

"I agree

J. Edgar Sexton J.A."

"I agree

B. Malone J.A."

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET: A-310-03

STYLE OF CAUSE: SYNCHROSAT LIMITED v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, Ontario

DATE OF HEARING: February 3, 2004

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.

CONCURRED IN BY: SEXTON J.A.

MALONE J.A.

DATED: February 4, 2004

APPEARANCES:

Dr. Asim K. Sen

FOR THE APPLICANT

Mr. Ernest Wheeler

Ms. Jennifer Neill

FOR THE RESPONDENT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT

Deputy Attorney General of Canada

Ottawa, Ontario

You are here

Synchrosat Ltd. v. Canada, 2004 FCA 55

Citations2004 FCA 55

Case tabs

Citations
2004 FCA 55