Hugessen
J.A.
(DéCary
and
McDonald,
JJ.A.,
concurring:—We
are
all
of
the
view
that
this
appeal
from
a
judgment
of
Reed
J.
dismissing
an
appeal
from
a
decision
of
the
Senior
Prothonotary
striking
out
the
statement
of
claim
must
fail.
In
our
view
the
case
is
indistinguishable
from
and
governed
by
Prior
v.
The
Queen,
[1988]
1
C.T.C.
241,
88
D.T.C.
6207
(F.C.T.D.);
[1989]
2
C.T.C.
280,
89
D.T.C.
5503
(F.C.A.).
In
that
case
the
decision
of
the
Trial
Division
was
affirmed
by
this
Court
and
leave
was
denied
(as
well
as
a
requested
reconsideration
thereof)
by
the
Supreme
Court.
Dr.
Prior’s
claim
under
article
18
of
the
International
Covenant
on
Civil
and
Political
Rights
was
also
dismissed
by
the
United
Nations
Human
Rights
Committee.
The
identity
of
this
case
with
Prior
is
well
illustrated
by
the
fact
that
large
parts
of
Dr
Petrini’s
oral
presentation
before
us
consisted
of
the
reading,
apparently
verbatim,
of
counsel’s
submissions
on
the
application
for
leave
to
the
Supreme
Court.
The
underlying
principle
decided
by
Prior
may
be
simply
stated:
the
Charter
guarantees
of
freedom
of
conscience
and
religion
cannot
operate
to
prevent
the
government
from
employing
general
tax
revenues
in
ways
which
offend
the
religious
beliefs
or
consciences
of
some
of
its
citizens.
The
obligation
that
such
citizens
have
to
pay
taxes
to
support
the
government
(and
therefore,
indirectly,
the
programs
which
offend
them)
does
not
breach
those
freedoms.
The
taxpayer,
so
long
as
he
or
she
is
not
compelled
to
agree
with
government
policy
or
forbidden
from
advocating
contrary
views,
has
no
justiciable
complaint.
The
simple,
if
subjectively
unpleasant,
obligation
to
pay
taxes
to
a
government
some
or
all
of
whose
views
and
programs
one
opposes
does
not
imply
support
of
such
views
and
programs
or
force
the
taxpayer
to
act
contrary
to
his
or
her
personal
beliefs
and
convictions;
on
the
contrary,
it
is
an
essential
part
of
living
in
a
democracy
such
as
Canada.
There
is
no
need
to
invoke
section
1
to
support
this
conclusion
for
it
is
inherent
in
the
system
of
government
which
has
existed
in
this
country
for
over
125
years.
On
the
question
of
costs,
we
can
see
no
reason
why
they
should
not
follow
the
event.
No
doubt
the
appellant
feels
passionately
that
he
is
right;
the
fact
is,
however,
that
he
is
wrong
and
pretentious
identical
to
those
put
forward
today
have
recently
been
rejected
at
every
level.
It
is
simply
wrong
to
suggest,
as
the
appellant
does,
that
it
was
the
Minister
rather
than
himself
who
has
initiated
these
proceedings
through
the
issuance
of
a
notice
of
assessment.
The
Minister
has
followed
the
law;
the
appellant
contests
it.
Earnestness,
sincerity
and
deeply
held
opinions
that
one
is
right
do
not
give
merit
to
a
claim
which
has
none.
The
appeal
will
be
dismissed
with
costs.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content