Dockets: A-426-17
A-427-17
A-428-17
Citation: 2018 FCA 225
[ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
| CORAM:
|
NADON J.A.
DE MONTIGNY J.A.
GLEASON J.A.
|
| Docket: A-426-17
|
| BETWEEN:
|
| THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE
|
| Appellant
|
| and
|
| ÉRIC LALANCETTE
AND
ARCI CABINET COMPTABLE INC.
|
| Respondents
|
| Docket: A-427-17
|
| BETWEEN:
|
| THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE
|
| Appellant
|
| and
|
| DANNY ALLAIRE
AND
ARCI CABINET COMPTABLE INC.
|
| Respondents
|
| Docket: A-428-17
|
| BETWEEN:
|
| THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE
|
| Appellant
|
| and
|
| CHRISTIAN MARTEL
AND
ARCI CABINET COMPTABLE INC.
|
| Respondents
|
Heard at Montreal, Quebec, on December 10, 2018.
Judgment delivered from the bench at Montreal, Quebec, on December 10, 2018.
| REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:
|
THE COURT
|
Dockets: A-426-17
A-427-17
A-428-17
Citation: 2018 FCA 225
| CORAM:
|
NADON J.A.
DE MONTIGNY J.A.
GLEASON J.A.
|
| Docket: A-426-17
|
| BETWEEN:
|
| THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE
|
| Appellant
|
| and
|
| ÉRIC LALANCETTE
AND
ARCI CABINET COMPTABLE INC.
|
| Respondents
|
| Docket: A-427-17
|
| BETWEEN:
|
| THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE
|
| Appellant
|
| and
|
| DANNY ALLAIRE
AND
ARCI CABINET COMPTABLE INC.
|
| Respondents
|
| Docket: A-428-17
|
| BETWEEN:
|
| THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE
|
| Appellant
|
| and
|
| CHRISTIAN MARTEL
AND
ARCI CABINET COMPTABLE INC.
|
| Respondents
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the bench at Montreal, Quebec, on December 10, 2018.)
[1]
Notwithstanding Mr. Petit’s very able arguments, we are of the opinion that there is no reason to intervene.
[2]
Even accepting that the Tax Court of Canada (the TCC) erred in respect of the test applicable to the concept of non-arm’s length, we are not satisfied that the conclusion reached by the TCC, in light of the particular facts of the case, is erroneous.
[3]
Our decision to dismiss the appeal must not be interpreted as an endorsement of the TCC’s analysis, especially regarding the test applicable to determining the existence of a non‑arm’s length relationship.
[4]
Given that the respondents did not participate in the appeal and that they defer to the judgment of this Court, and given the importance of the issue raised by the appeal, we believe that it is desirable, under the circumstances, for the issue to be debated in another case.
[5]
For these reasons, the appeal will be dismissed without costs.
“Marc Nadon”
“Yves de Montigny”
“Mary J.L. Gleason”
Certified true translation
Janine Anderson, Revisor
Email this Content