Boisvert,
J.:—This
is
an
appeal
from
a
decision
of
Mackin,
Provincial
Court
Judge,
who
dismissed
two
charges
against
the
respondent
under
the
Income
Tax
Act,
R.S.C.
1952,
c.
148
(as
amended).
The
first
charge
was
to
the
effect
that
the
respondent:
.
.
.
unlawfully
failed
to
comply
with
the
demand
in
a
personally
served
letter
dated
the
24th
day
of
December,
1987,
made
upon
him
pursuant
to
paragraph
231.2(1)(a)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act,
in
that
he
did
not
provide
to
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
at
Saint
John,
in
the
said
County
of
Saint
John,
Province
of
New
Brunswick,
an
income
tax
return
on
Form
T1
for
the
taxation
year
1986,
required
from
him,
contrary
to
subsection
238(2)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
R.S.C.
1952,
Chapter
148,
as
amended.
The
relevant
section
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
reads
as
follows:
231.2(1)
Requirement
to
provide
documents
or
information.
—
Notwithstanding
any
other
provision
of
this
Act,
the
Minister
may
subject
to
subsection
(2),
for
any
purpose
related
to
the
administration
or
enforcement
of
this
Act,
by
notice
served
personally
or
by
registered
or
certified
mail,
require
that
any
person
provide,
within
such
reasonable
time
as
is
stipulated
in
the
notice.
(a)
any
information
or
additional
information,
including
a
return
of
income
or
a
supplementary
return;
or
At
the
time,
the
then
subsection
238(2)
stipulated
that
failure
to
comply
with
section
231
resulted
in
an
offence
and
penalties
were
thus
provided
for.
The
second
charge
against
the
respondent
was
that:
.
.
.
being
an
Officer,
Director
or
Agent
of
the
said
Bay
Vista
Lodge
&
Cottages
Limited
did
direct,
authorize,
assent
to,
acquiesce
in,
or
participate
in
the
failure
of
the
said
Bay
Vista
Lodge
&
Cottages
Limited
to
file
an
income
tax
return
on
Form
T2
for
the
taxation
year
ended
December
31,
1986
following
a
notice,
therefore,
dated
the
24th
day
of
December,
1987,
made
upon
the
said
Bay
Vista
Lodge
&
Cottages
Limited
pursuant
to
paragraph
231.2(1)(a)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
R.S.C.
1952,
Chapter
148,
as
amended,
and
is
thereby,
a
party
to
and
guilty
of
the
said
offence
by
virtue
of
section
242
of
the
said
Act.
Section
242
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
states:
242.
Officers,
etc.,
of
corporations.—
Where
a
corporation
is
guilty
of
an
offence
under
this
Act,
an
officer,
director
or
agent
of
the
corporation
who
directed,
authorized,
assented
to,
acquiesced
in,
or
participated
in,
the
commission
of
the
offence
is
a
party
to
and
guilty
of
the
offence
and
is
liable
on
conviction
to
the
punishment
provided
for
the
offence
whether
or
not
the
corporation
has
been
prosecuted
or
convicted.
In
both
cases,
the
grounds
of
appeal
are
that
the
provincial
court
judge
erred
in
law
and
on
the
facts
in
finding
the
accused
not
guilty.
It
should
be
noted
that
there
was
a
third
charge
involving
failure
by
the
company,
Bay
Vista
Lodge
&
Cottages
Limited,
to
comply
with
a
demand
to
file.
On
this
charge,
the
trial
judge
found
the
company
guilty
and
imposed
the
minimum
fine
of
$200.
The
facts
are
few
and
simple.
Canadian
tax
laws
spell
out
that
personal
income
tax
returns
are
to
be
filed
by
the
end
of
April.
In
the
case
of
the
respondent's
company,
filing
was
required
by
the
end
of
June.
In
1987,
the
respondent
and
his
company
failed
to
meet
those
deadlines.
Hence,
on
January
25,
1988,
a
compliance
officer
with
Revenue
Canada,
Taxation,
personally
served
written
requests
on
the
respondent
directed
to
him
and
his
company
(Bay
Vista
Lodge
and
Cottages
Limited),
requesting
that
income
tax
returns
for
the
taxation
year
1986
be
filed
on
or
before
March
4,
1988.
The
evidence
is
clear
that
there
was
failure
to
comply
within
the
time
stipulated
in
the
notices.
At
trial,
the
respondent's
position
was
that
he
was
a
victim
of
harassment
by
Revenue
Canada.
As
he
put
it
"they're
trying
to
attack
me
in
whichever
way
they
can”.
On
reviewing
the
transcript,
it
becomes
apparent
that
the
learned
provincial
court
judge
harbours
little
sympathy
towards
Revenue
Canada.
He
goes
so
far
as
to
cite,
as
an
example
of
ill
treatment,
the
case
of
his
own
son.
It
should
be
remembered
that
the
respondent
was
not
represented
by
counsel
at
trial.
Under
the
circumstances,
it
becomes
evident
that
the
provincial
court
judge
aspired
to
be
as
helpful
as
possible
to
the
accused
taxpayer.
Thus,
by
his
questions,
the
learned
judge
participated
rather
actively
in
the
respondent's
presentation
of
his
case.
Without
casting
doubt
on
the
trial
judge's
good
intentions,
the
transcript
does
show
a
certain
degree
of
unnecessary
judicial
participation.
We
ought
to
remind
ourselves
of
the
judgment
of
Lord
Denning,
then
L.J.,
in
Jones
v.
National
Coal
Board,
[1957]
2
All
E.R.
155:
In
the
system
of
trial
which
we
have
evolved
.
.
.
the
judge
sits
to
hear
and
determine
the
issues
raised
by
the
parties,
not
to
conduct
an
investigation
or
examination
on
behalf
of
society
at
large
.
.
.
On
review
of
the
record
below,
I
cannot
conclude
that
the
trial
court
properly
directed
itself
to
the
evidence
bearing
on
the
relevant
issues.
Simply
put,
the
reasons
for
judgment
disclose
a
lack
of
appreciation
of
the
relevant
evidence.
This
is
what
the
provincial
court
judge
said
when
dismissing
the
two
charges:
Court:
As
far
as
the
two
charges,
one
against
Brian
Ritchie
as
director
or
agent
of
Bay
Vista
Lodge
and
Cottages
Limited
did
direct,
authorize,
assent
to,
acquiesce
in,
or
participate
in
the
failure
of
the
said
Bay
Vista
Lodge
&
Cottages
(sic)
Limited
to
file
an
income
tax
return
on
Form
T2
for
the
taxation
year
ended
December
31,
1986,
I
can’t
see
that
the
case
was
made
out
there
and
I
think
it
was
filed
as
soon
as
he
was
able
to
file
after
all
these
relationship
with
the
Income
Tax
and
raises
a
doubt
as
to
the
justice
of
entering
a
conviction,
things
that
he
has
said
has
not
been
rebutted
so
I
would
dismiss
that
charge.
As
far
as
his
personal
this
has
to
do
with
the
same
letter
as
the
first
one.
They're
all
the
same
demand
aren't
they
that
Brian
Ritchie
of
Shediac
Bridge
unlawfully
failed
to
comply
with
a
demand
in
a
personally
served
letter
dated
the
24th
of
December,
87
made
upon
him
pursuant
to
section
231(1)(a)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act.
That's
the
same
letter.
Mr.
Boucher:
Yes
your
honour,
pretty
well.
Court:
I’ll
dismiss
that
charge
as
well.
But
on
the
3rd
charge
that
they
failed
to
comply
with
a
demand
in
a
personally
served
letter
although
I
would
think
that
you
may
have
a
good
defence
on
appeal
double
penalty,
one
under
the
Income
Tax
and
one
under
this
section
of
the
Income
Tax.
This
is
a
matter
that
you
and
I
won't
get
into.
Returns
evidently
for
companies
have
to
be
filed
within
6
months
at
the
end
of
the
fiscal
year
and
in
any
event
whether
you
have
all
the
information
or
not
you
have
to
file
with
what
you
have.
If
it
weren't
for
a
minimum
charge
I
would
grant
an
absolute
discharge
but
I
can't
do
in
this
case
and
so
I'll
find
the
company
guilty
and
impose
the
minimum
fine
of
$200.00,
unless
.
.
.
Let
us
turn
to
the
first
charge.
As
I
review
the
evidence,
I
conclude
that
the
time
given
to
the
respondent
for
filing
was,
in
the
circumstances
given,
reasonable.
There
is
no
valid
explanation
in
the
evidence
to
justify
the
failure
to
comply.
I
agree
with
counsel
for
the
appellant
that
it
is
not
a
defence
to
claim
that
a
taxpayer
requires
previous
ruling
from
Revenue
Canada
before
he
can
file.
And,
to
attempt
to
put
blame
on
a
taxpayer's
accountant
is
not,
by
itself,
a
valid
justification.
The
second
charge
has
nothing
to
do
with
failing
to
comply
with
a
demand
to
file
within
a
certain
time.
Rather,
the
question
is
whether
the
respondent
had
"directed,
authorized,
assented
to,
acquiesced
in,
or
participated
in”,
the
failure
of
the
company
to
file.
Having
found
the
company
guilty,
it
seems
fairly
clear
that
there
was
sufficient
evidence
before
the
trial
judge
to
turn
his
attention
to
this
issue.
As
I
see
it,
there
are
well-founded
grounds
to
find
the
respondent
guilty
of
this
charge
as
well.
Both
appeals
are
allowed
and
the
acquittals
are
set
aside.
I
would
substitute
therefor
a
conviction
for
each
offence.
In
the
circumstances,
for
each
infraction,
I
impose
the
minimum
fine
of
$200.
Appeals
allowed.
Email this Content