Docket: A-410-14
Citation:
2016 FCA 57
|
CORAM:
|
DAWSON J.A.
NEAR J.A.
BOIVIN J.A.
|
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
MOHAMMED S.
ELBADAWI
|
|
Appellant
|
|
and
|
|
HER MAJESTY THE
QUEEN
|
|
Respondent
|
Heard
at Toronto, Ontario, on February 18, 2016.
Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on February 23, 2016.
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:
|
DAWSON
J.A.
|
|
CONCURRED IN BY:
|
NEAR
J.A.
BOIVIN
J.A.
|
Docket: A-410-14
Citation:
2016 FCA 57
|
CORAM:
|
DAWSON J.A.
NEAR J.A.
BOIVIN J.A.
|
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
MOHAMMED S.
ELBADAWI
|
|
Appellant
|
|
and
|
|
HER MAJESTY THE
QUEEN
|
|
Respondent
|
REASONS
FOR JUDGMENT
DAWSON J.A.
[1]
The Minister of National Revenue concluded that
the appellant had, during the 2000, 2001 and 2002 taxation years, received
unreported income from a corporation that he controlled. The Minister assessed
the appellant accordingly. The appellant appealed the assessment to the Tax
Court of Canada. For reasons cited as 2014 TCC 259, a judge of the Tax Court
dismissed the appeal. For supplementary reasons cited as 2014 TCC 363, the
Judge ordered the appellant to pay costs fixed in a lump sum, in an amount in
excess of the applicable court tariff. This is an appeal from the judgment of
the Tax Court with respect to the appeal and costs.
[2]
While the appellant asserts numerous errors on
the part of the Judge, I am of the view that the Judge made no reviewable
error.
[3]
In reaching her decision on the main appeal, the
Judge made the following findings of fact:
i)
The appellant treated all of his corporate
entities as being interchangeable with him.
ii)
There was a scarcity of records and supporting
documentation.
iii)
The Judge received only the appellant’s
self-serving testimony and very little else to support his allegation that he
did not receive the income attributed to him.
iv)
In addition to being self-serving, the
appellant’s testimony was vague and, at times, evasive and contradictory. None
of his assertions were supported by documentation, and he did not call his
accountant to testify.
v)
Some documentation submitted by the appellant
had been altered.
vi)
The Judge could not give any weight to the
appellant’s evidence because of the credibility issues and lack of
corroborative evidence.
[4]
These findings have not been demonstrated to be
vitiated by any palpable and overriding error and they are dispositive of the
appeal.
[5]
With respect to the issue of costs, the
appellant failed to make any submissions on the issue of costs before the Tax
Court. The Judge found that the respondent’s work in respect of the proceeding
in the Tax Court was much greater than would normally be required, largely due
to the difficulties in dealing with the appellant. Throughout the proceeding in
the Tax Court, the appellant’s focus centred upon the conduct of officials of
the Canada Revenue Agency during the assessment process. This, notwithstanding
what the Judge characterized to be her “explanations
and repeated redirections” to the appellant. In the Judge’s words, this “accounted in large part for the hearing ballooning from its
allotted five days for hearing to the ten days it took to complete”. As
the Judge ultimately concluded at paragraph 28 of her supplementary reasons,
the appellant disregarded her warnings “because his
goal was a fact-finding mission against the [Canada Revenue Agency] in order to
implement” a civil suit against a number of individuals employed by the
Canada Revenue Agency and others.
[6]
Additionally, the Judge listed unnecessary steps
required in the proceeding as a result of the appellant’s conduct.
[7]
In this circumstance, no error has been
demonstrated in the Judge’s discretionary order as to costs.
[8]
For these reasons, I would dismiss the appeal
and the appeal from the award of costs, with costs.
“Eleanor R. Dawson”
“I agree.
D. G. Near J.A.”
“I agree.
Richard Boivin J.A.”
Email this Content