The
Court:—We
have
not,
in
this
appeal,
been
asked
to
address
the
issues
on
the
basis
of
infringement
of
any
rights
accorded
by
either
the
Canadian
Charter
of
Rights
and
Freedoms
or
the
Canadian
Bill
of
Rights.
Accordingly,
we
express
no
opinion
on
those
aspects
of
the
judgment
below,
vid.
The
Queen
v.
Kurisko,
[1988]
2
C.T.C.
254;
88
D.T.C.
6434.
Nothing
said
of
other
aspects
of
those
reasons
calls
for
our
particular
comment.
In
our
opinion,
the
constitutionality
of
the
present
contributory
judges'
pension
scheme
has
been
conclusively
established
by
Beauregard
v.
The
Queen,
[1986]
2
S.C.R.
56;
30
D.L.R.
(4th)
254.
That
decision
is
also
conclusive
that
the
present
scheme
does
not
impair
judicial
independence.
We
are
all
of
the
view
that
the
learned
trial
judge
did
not
err
in
the
result
and
that
he
correctly
construed
and
applied
the
relevant
statutory
provisions
in
reaching
the
conclusion
that
the
maximum
annual
deduction
permitted
by
paragraph
8(1)(m)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
is
the
limit
to
which
the
amount
reserved
from
a
judge's
salary
pursuant
to
subsection
29.1(2)
of
the
Judges
Act!
may
be
deducted
for
income
tax
purposes.
Costs
were
not
asked
for
by
either
party.
The
appeal
will
be
dismissed.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content