Pratte
J.A.:
The
Minister
of
National
Revenue
having
decided
that
the
applicant
was
not
engaged
in
insurable
employment,
the
applicant
appealed
to
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada,
as
he
was
authorized
to
do
by
section
70
of
the
Unemployment
Insurance
Act.
The
judge
of
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada
dismissed
the
appeal
on
the
ground
that
the
decisions
of
this
Court
did
not
permit
him
to
intervene;
he
added
that
he
regretted
having
to
make
this
decision
because
he
considered
the
Minister’s
decision
to
be
“totally
insupportable”
and
incomprehensible.
It
is
that
decision
that
the
applicant
is
seeking
to
have
reviewed.
Certainly,
as
counsel
for
the
respondent
acknowledged,
the
judge
misunderstood
the
decisions
of
this
Court,
which
specify
the
situations
in
which
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada
may
set
aside
the
Minister’s
decision
in
a
case
such
as
this
one.
Contrary
to
what
the
judge
thought,
it
is
not
necessary,
in
order
for
the
judge
to
be
able
to
exercise
that
power,
for
it
to
be
established
that
the
Minister’s
decision
was
unreasonable
or
made
in
bad
faith
having
regard
to
the
evidence
before
the
Minister.
What
is
necessary
is
that
the
evidence
presented
to
the
judge
establish
that
the
Minister
acted
in
bad
faith,
or
capriciously
or
unlawfully,
or
based
his
decision
on
irrelevant
facts
or
did
not
have
regard
to
relevant
facts.
The
judge
may
then
substitute
his
decision
for
that
of
the
Minister.
Contrary
to
what
the
judge
believed,
he
therefore
could
have
intervened
and
should
have
intervened
if,
as
he
asserted,
the
evidence
established
that
the
Minister’s
decision
was
unreasonable.
However,
it
seems
to
us
that
the
judge’s
assertion
is
also
inaccurate
and
based
on
an
error
of
law,
since
the
judge
did
not
take
into
account
the
well-settled
rule
that
the
allegations
in
the
reply
to
the
notice
of
appeal,
in
which
the
Minister
states
the
facts
on
which
he
based
his
decision,
must
be
assumed
to
be
true
as
long
as
the
appellant
has
not
proved
them
false.
That
being
the
case,
the
judge’s
conclusion
that
the
Minister’s
decision
should
be
affirmed
must
itself
be
affirmed.
The
application
for
judicial
review
will
therefore
be
dismissed.
Application
dismissed.
Email this Content