Date: 20021219
Docket: A-528-00
Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 519
CORAM: STRAYER J.A.
SEXTON J.A.
EVANS J.A.
BETWEEN:
IAN D. CROWE
Applicant
and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
Heard at Halifax, Nova Scotia, on December 19, 2002.
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Halifax, Nova Scotia, on December 20, 2002.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: EVANS J.A.
Date: 20021219
Docket: A-528-00
Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 519
CORAM: STRAYER J.A.
SEXTON J.A.
EVANS J.A.
BETWEEN:
IAN D. CROWE
Applicant
and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Halifax, Nova Scotia
on December 19, 2002.)
EVANS J.A.
[1] This is an application for judicial review by Ian D. Crowe to set aside a decision of the Tax Court of Canada, dated September 20, 2000, in which Hamlyn J.T.C.C. dismissed an appeal by Mr. Crowe against the Minister's reassessment of his income tax liability for the year 1996.
[2] The Minister had disallowed a deduction of $14,774 from Mr. Crowe's income for that year which he had identified as "equivalent to spousal RRSP". Finding that Mr. Crowe had not in fact made an RRSP contribution of $14,774, the Tax Court Judge dismissed the appeal.
[3] Mr. Crowe submits that the Tax Court's decision should be set aside as erroneous in law because the Judge failed to deal with his argument that, since his bank had refused to permit him to purchase a spousal RRSP because his partner was not of the opposite sex and, hence, not a "spouse" within the meaning of the Income Tax Act, subsection 146(5.1), the Minister's reassessment denied him his constitutional right to equality guaranteed by section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Mr. Crowe testified before the Tax Court that he had "put aside" the $14,774 and had claimed it, falsely, as a business expense.
[4] In our opinion, the Tax Court Judge was correct to dismiss the appeal. Since Mr. Crowe made no spousal RRSP contributions, the Minister's reassessment was not in error and the Tax Court Judge was bound to dismiss the appeal. Whether the spousal RRSP contribution provisions of the Income Tax Act that were in force in 1996 (but were amended in 2000-01, retroactive to 1998 to include common-law spouses: Income Tax Act, subsection 146(5.1) as am. S.C., s. 1 2000, c. 12, Sch. 2, section 1 and 2001, c. 17, subsection 246(3)) violated Mr. Crowe's Charter rights was not a question that could appropriately be pursued in these proceedings.
[5] The Minister did not deny the claimed RRSP contribution on the ground that Mr. Crowe's partner was not his spouse for the purpose of the Act, and Mr. Crowe gave no notice of a constitutional question as required by subsection 57(1) of the Federal Court Act before a litigant may challenge the validity of legislation in either the Tax Court or this Court.
"John M. Evans"
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-528-00
STYLE OF CAUSE: IAN D. CROWE v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
PLACE OF HEARING: HALIFAX, NOVA SCOTIA
DATE OF HEARING: DECEMBER 19, 2002
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(STRAYER, SEXTON AND EVANS JJ.A)
RENDERED FROM THE BENCH BY EVANS J.A.
APPEARANCES:
MR. IAN D. CROWE APPLICANT ON HIS OWN BEHALF
MR. JOHN SMITHERS FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
MR. IAN D. CROWE APPLICANT ON HIS OWN BEHALF
Halifax, Nova Scotia
MORRIS ROSENBERG DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
Ottawa, Ontario CANADA
FOR THE RESPONDENT
Email this Content