Marceau
J.A.:
It
was
agreed
at
the
outset
of
the
hearing
that
if
the
Court
reached
the
conclusion
that
the
constitutional
challenge
mounted
by
the
appeal
raised
serious
questions,
the
matter
would
be
adjourned
to
allow
for
full
compliance
with
the
mandatory
provisions
of
section
57
of
the
Federal
Court
Act,
as
this
Court
could
not
give
effect
to
a
request
of
this
nature
without
special
notice
of
the
proceedings
first
having
been
served
on
the
attorney
general
of
each
province.
However,
if
the
Court
were
unable
to
find
some
substance
to
the
appellant’s
argument,
it
would
naturally
have
to
dismiss
the
appeal
outright.
We
allowed
the
appellant
to
say
everything
he
wished
to
say,
and
took
care
to
analyse
his
written
representations
and
consult
the
authorities
to
which
he
claimed
to
refer.
Our
conviction
remained
the
same,
because
the
appellant,
though
eloquent,
failed
to
convince
us
that
his
arguments
were
not
solely
based
on
misapprehension
and
misperception
of
the
law.
Time
and
again,
Parliament
has
been
recognized
as
having
general
jurisdiction
over
direct
taxation
and,
particularly,
as
having
full
authority
over
income
tax.
The
taxation
of
Canadians’
incomes,
introduced
in
1917
in
time
of
war,
was
expressly
kept
in
force
at
the
end
of
the
war
as
a
permanent
element
of
the
federal
fiscal
structure,
and
the
initial
enactment
was
replaced
in
1948
by
the
Income
Tax
Act,
the
product
of
a
power
that
stems
directly
from
the
Constitution
and
by
no
means
from
a
full
or
partial
delegation
by
the
provinces.
There
is
no
merit
to
the
claims
of
constitutional
invalidity
on
which
the
appellant
based
his
challenge
to
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada
judgment.
Therefore,
his
appeal
must
be
dismissed,
with
—
as
the
general
rule
provides
—
costs.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content