Brulé,
TCJ
[ORALLY]:—This
is
a
case
involving
the
question
of
residency
of
the
appellant
during
the
years
of
1980
and
1981.
He
was
employed
by
Viking
Helicopters
Limited,
a
Canadian
corporation
for
work
to
be
performed
in
Africa.
Late
in
1979,
he
left
for
Africa
and
remained
there
until
November
of
1980.
He
then
travelled
for
a
period
but
returned
to
Canada
to
be
with
his
parents
at
Christmas.
Similarly,
in
1981,
the
appellant
left
Canada
early
in
the
year,
travelled
again;
returned
briefly
to
his
parents’
home
in
April
and
then
returned
to
Africa
until
late
September.
He
was
in
Europe
and
the
United
States
until
mid-December
when
he
finally
returned
to
Canada.
The
appellant
contended
that
during
the
subject
years
he
was
a
non-resident
of
Canada
and
therefore,
not
liable
for
income
tax
in
this
country
with
respect
to
the
payments
received
by
him
while
working
in
Africa.
A
tax
return
was
filed
in
Canada
for
each
of
the
years
1980
and
1981.
Prior
to
these
years,
he
had
worked
abroad
for
the
same
company
but
had
not
claimed
non-resident
status.
It
was
likely
in
Ottawa,
in
December,
1979,
that
the
appellant
completed
a
form
containing
information
for
determination
of
residence.
He
was
unsure
of
the
time
that
this
form
was
completed
and
some
of
the
information
contained
therein
was
not
readily
recalled
by
the
appellant.
This
form
as
completed
was
probably
used
as
the
basis
for
Revenue
Canada
in
a
letter
of
January
29,
1980,
advising
Viking
Helicopters
that
they
could
waive
the
deducting
of
income
tax
at
source
while
the
appellant
was
in
West
Africa.
This
would
seem
to
give
the
appellant
the
status
he
sought.
However,
it
is
necessary
to
look
at
all
the
surrounding
circumstances
to
determine
whether
or
not,
in
fact,
he
did
become
a
non-resident
for
tax
purposes.
In
Percy
Walker
Thompson
v
MNR,
[1946]
CTC
51;
2
DTC
812,
and
referred
to
by
counsel
for
Mr
MacLean,
Mr
Justice
Rand
set
out
certain
criteria
and
said
at
63
[815],
and
I
quote:
.
.
.
The
gradation
of
degrees
of
time,
object,
intention,
continuity,
and
other
relevant
circumstances
shows,
I
think,
that
in
common
parlance
“residing”
is
not
a
term
of
invariable
elements,
all
of
which
must
be
satisfied
in
each
instance.
It
is
quite
impossible
to
give
it
a
precise
and
inclusive
definition.
It
is
highly
flexible,
and
its
many
shades
of
meaning
vary,
not
only
in
the
contexts
of
different
matters
but
also
in
different
aspects
of
the
same
matter.
In
one
case
it
is
satisfied
by
certain
elements,
and
in
another
by
others,
some
common,
some
new.
Mr
Justice
Rand
went
on
to
say:
.
.
.
The
general
mode
of
life
is
therefore
relevant
to
a
question
of
residency
application.
With
this
guidance
and
the
factor
suggested
to
be
considered
in
the
case
of
Guy
Rajotte
v
The
Minister,
reported
in
[1979]
CTC
2555;
79
DTC
436,
I
have
applied
the
facts
as
put
forth
in
evidence.
I
believe
the
appellant
came
upon
a
possible
non-resident
status,
perhaps
more
by
chance
than
design.
The
important
information
questionnaire
referred
to
above
was
not
sought
but
probably
put
forth
by
the
employer,
Viking
Helicopters.
The
appellant
could
not
recall
many
details
of
his
involvement.
At
the
end
of
the
questionnaire,
he
signed
an
undertaking
to
notify
banks
and
trustees
of
his
non-residential
status,
if
such
were
granted.
Not
only
did
he
not
do
this,
he
could
not
remember
signing
the
document.
His
whole
attitude
was
one
of
laissez
faire,
his
mother
under
a
power
of
attorney
to
act
on
his
behalf,
and
his
father
to
complete
his
tax
returns,
even
though
he
signed
them
but
uncertain
as
to
where
and
when.
He
was
not
interested
enough
to
take
an
active
interest.
The
appellant
owned
a
residence
which
he
purported
to
lease,
but
which
undertaking
was
aborted.
No
effort
was
made
to
find
another
tenant.
He
paid
taxes
and
insurance
on
this
residence
albeit
through
his
mother,
and
he
retained
his
Canadian
investments.
As
set
out
above,
the
appellant
took
no
steps
to
seek
non-resident
status
in
previous
working
undertakings
out
of
the
country,
and
in
the
instant
case,
although
presumably
given
non-resident
status
by
Revenue
Canada,
such
was
only
part
of
the
necessary
steps
that
an
individual
must
conform
to
before
he
can
be
completely
so
classified.
The
appellant,
in
my
view,
did
not
do
all
that
was
required
before
he
could
be
relieved
from
paying
income
tax
on
moneys
earned
while
in
Africa.
Nor
did
he
seek
any
help
to
determine
what
steps
were
necessary.
His
attitude
towards
a
non-resident
status
was
apathetic,
and
while
reviewing
in
total
all
the
factors
which
contributed
to
my
conclusion,
which
I
do
not
believe
are
necessary
to
detail,
I
find
that
Mr
MacLean
was
a
resident
for
tax
purposes
in
1980
and
1981.
His
appeal
is
dismissed.
Thank
you.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content