Docket: A-54-16
Citation: 2017 FCA 95
|
CORAM:
|
NADON J.A.
GAUTHIER J.A.
TRUDEL J.A.
|
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
TRICOMCANADA
INC.
|
|
Appellant
|
|
And
|
|
HER MAJESTY THE
QUEEN
|
|
Respondent
|
Hearing
held at Montréal, Quebec, on May 4, 2017.
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Montréal, Quebec, on, May 4, 2017.
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:
|
GAUTHIER
J.A.
|
Docket: A-54-16
Citation: 2017 FCA 95
|
CORAM:
|
NADON J.A.
GAUTHIER J.A.
TRUDEL J.A.
|
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
TRICOMCANADA
INC.
|
|
Appellant
|
|
And
|
|
HER MAJESTY THE
QUEEN
|
|
Respondent
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF
THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Montréal,
Quebec, on May 4, 2017.)
GAUTHIER J.A.
[1]
In this appeal, TRICOMCANADA INC. is challenging
the decision of Justice Hogan of the Tax Court of Canada (TCC) dismissing its appeal
of a notice of assessment issued pursuant to Part IX of the Excise Tax Act,
R.S.C. 1985, c. E-15, for the period from April 23, 2012, to November 23, 2012.
[2]
In that decision (2016 TCC 8), the TCC
concluded that the appellant was not entitled to
input tax credits claimed for its purchases of gold during that period because:
(i) the invoices the appellant relied on to support its claim were false; and (ii)
the appellant used these invoices to knowingly mask the
identity of its true suppliers (reasons of the TCC at paragraphs 156 and
165).
[3]
In its reasons, the TCC conducted a detailed
review of the evidence adduced during the trial, which lasted 12 days. Among
other things, it concluded that a number of witnesses were not credible, including
the appellant’s representative.
[4]
In its memorandum, the appellant raised a number
of arguments such as the fact that the trial was conducted as if it were an appeal
initiated by its own suppliers focusing on the suppliers of its suppliers (for
example see the appellant’s memorandum at paragraph 31).
[5]
However, before this Court, the appellant stated
that its key argument in this appeal is that the TCC misapplied the burden of
proof. Furthermore, the findings of fact described at paragraph 2 above resulted,
in its view, from the TCC’s dissatisfaction with the evidence, particularly because
a number of questions were left unanswered. It adds that it was not for it to
answer those questions.
[6]
Despite the able presentation by counsel for the
appellant, we are of the view that this appeal cannot succeed on the issue of
burden of proof as it is a non-issue. In any event, the TCC had sufficient
evidence to conclude as it did. It did not, therefore, commit any error justifying
our intervention. In the light of the factual findings set out above, this is a
case well within the parameters established in our Court’s case law, including Amiante
Spec Inc. v. Canada, 2009 FCA 139, 186 A.C.W.S. (3d) 279,
and Canada v. Salaison Lévesque, 2014 FCA 296,
479 N.R. 199.
[7]
The appeal will therefore be dismissed with
costs.
“Johanne Gauthier”
Email this Content