MACFARLANE,
J.:—The
defendant
Bourassa
was
charged
in
the
Court
below
with
failing
to
file
an
income
tax
return
pursuant
to
a
Demand
made
upon
him
under
Section
126(2)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
of
Canada.
He
was
acquitted
of
this
offence,
which
was
brought
under
Section
131(2)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act.
In
the
Stated
Case
which
is
before
me,
the
learned
magistrate
has
posed
this
question
:
Was
I
correct
in
holding
that
pursuant
to
Section
126(6)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
the
accused
was
not
personally
required
to
do
that
demanded
upon
or
required
from
him
of
completing
the
income
tax
returns
of
a
corporation
of
which
he
was
a
director
and
the
principal
officer
since
he
did
not
have
the
physical
and
mental
ability
to
personally
do
that
demanded
upon
or
required
from
him.
The
magistrate
has
found
as
a
fact,
in
paragraph
6
of
the
Stated
Case:
That
Mr.
Bourassa
personally
was
physically
and
mentally
unable
to
do
those
things
which
were
demanded
upon
him
by
the
letter
of
demand
of
August
7,
1967
by
reason
of
his
lack
of
ability
to
read
and
write.
In
paragraph
5
of
the
facts
stated,
the
magistrate
noted
that
Mr.
Bourassa
has
had
very
little
schooling,
but
he
also
noted
that
Mr.
Bourassa,
in
the
past,
had
relied
upon
other
persons
to
handle
his
correspondence
and
to
handle
his
bookkeeping
and
that
his
bookkeeper
had
become
ill
and
that
the
work
in
connection
with
the
bookkeeping
of
the
company
had
piled
up.
The
clear
question
which
I
am
asked
to
decide
is
whether
the
defendant
Bourassa
has
a
good
defence
under
Section
126(6)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
by
reason
of
the
words
therein,
‘‘
.
.
.
unless
he
is
unable
to
do
so.’’
These
words
are
very
wide
and
seem
to
be
unrestricted
in
the
statute.
It
is
not
for
me
to
decide
the
facts
but
to
decide
whether
or
not
there
has
been
an
error
of
law.
The
magistrate
has
heard
the
evidence
and
he
has
decided
as
a
matter
of
fact
that
the
defendant
was
unable
to
comply
with
this
demand.
I
have
to
find
that
there
was
some
evidence
upon
which
that
finding
could
be
made
and
that
is
as
far
as
I
am
permitted
to
go
in
an
application
by
way
of
Stated
Case.
I
cannot
find
that
there
is
any
error
in
law.
I
would
not
want
my
judgment,
however,
to
be
interpreted
as
an
invitation
to
persons
to
raise
a
defence
based
on
their
inability
to
deal
with
either
of
the
official
languages,
and
I
think
it
would
be
only
in
most
exceptional
and
extraordinary
circumstances
that
a
defence
such
as
this
would
succeed.
Therefore,
I
want
to
make
it
clear
that
I
am
establishing
no
precedent
here
by
this
judgment
as
to
what,
in
any
given
case,
will
be
found
to
be
as
a
fact
a
defence
falling
within
the
words,
‘‘unable
to
do
so,”
as
used
in
the
Act.
Accordingly,
I
would
dismiss
the
appeal.
Email this Content