Docket: A-218-20
Citation: 2022 FCA 115
| CORAM:
|
STRATAS J.A.
LASKIN J.A.
MACTAVISH J.A.
|
| BETWEEN:
|
| ALEXANDER MARINO
|
| Appellant
|
| and
|
| HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
|
| Respondent
|
Heard at Vancouver, British Columbia, on June 15, 2022.
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Vancouver, British Columbia, on June 15, 2022.
| REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY:
|
STRATAS J.A.
|
Docket: A-218-20
Citation: 2022 FCA 115
| CORAM:
|
STRATAS J.A.
LASKIN J.A.
MACTAVISH J.A.
|
| BETWEEN:
|
| ALEXANDER MARINO
|
| Appellant
|
| and
|
| HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
|
| Respondent
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Vancouver, British Columbia, on June 15, 2022).
STRATAS J.A.
[1] We are all of the view that this appeal from the judgment of the Tax Court of Canada (per Monaghan J.) (2020 TCC 50) must be dismissed. The Tax Court correctly interpreted sections 118.5 and 118.61 of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.). We agree with the Tax Court’s reasons in this regard.
[2] In interpreting sections 118.5 and 118.61 of the Act, the Tax Court applied this Court’s decision in Oceanspan Carriers Ltd. v. Canada, [1987] 2 F.C. 171, [1987] 1 C.T.C. 210. The Tax Court found that Oceanspan determines the statutory interpretation issues in this case.
[3] The appellant does not explicitly submit that Oceanspan is manifestly wrong under Miller v. Canada (A.G.), 2002 FCA 370, 220 D.L.R. (4th) 149. However, in his oral submissions, the appellant submits that the Court in Oceanspan did not interpret the provisions in light of their text, context and purpose. We disagree. In substance it did so: see pages 177-180 F.C. The appellant also invites us to re-do the analysis in Oceanspan of text, context and purpose and reach a different conclusion. But, as a matter of horizontal stare decisis set out in Miller, that is not a task open to us. Oceanspan is also directly on point. Thus, overall, Oceanspan binds us, just as it bound the Tax Court.
[4] The appellant contends that section 250.1 of the Act, added after Oceanspan, supersedes Oceanspan and has the effect of deeming every non-resident person to have a taxation year in Canada. We disagree for the reasons expressed by the Tax Court at paragraphs 35-40.
[5] The appellant submits that it was incumbent on Parliament to use words specifically precluding him from the tax treatment he seeks in this case. We do not accept such a sweeping proposition. But, in any event, in our view, examining Parliament’s provisions in light of their text, context and purpose, and giving the text its due weight in the analysis, Parliament did so in this case. The Tax Court so found. It did not err.
[6] Therefore, we will dismiss the appeal with costs.
"David Stratas"
Email this Content