Date:
20121017
Docket:
A-110-11
Citation:
2012 FCA 262
CORAM: NOËL J.A.
SHARLOW J.A.
STRATAS J.A.
BETWEEN:
ROGER R. PRESSEAULT and CLAIRE
PRESSEAULT
Appellants
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
Heard
at Ottawa, Ontario, on October
17, 2012.
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, on October
17, 2012.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
BY: SHARLOW J.A.
Date:
20121017
Docket:
A-110-11
Citation:
2012 FCA 262
CORAM: NOËL
J.A.
SHARLOW
J.A.
STRATAS
J.A.
BETWEEN:
ROGER R. PRESSEAULT and CLAIRE
PRESSEAULT
Appellants
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
OF THE COURT
(Delivered
from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, on October 17, 2012)
SHARLOW
J.A.
[1]
This
is an appeal of a judgment of Justice Lamarre of the Tax Court of Canada (2011
TCC 69) dismissing three tax appeals by the appellants Roger R. Presseault and
his spouse Claire Presseault. Two of the Tax Court appeals were from
assessments under the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.) for
1996, 1997, 1998 and 1999, and one was from an assessment under Part IX of the Excise
Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-15, relating to the same years. In this Court,
Mr. Presseault represented himself and also, with leave of this Court, spoke
for Ms. Presseault.
[2]
During
the period in issue, the appellants carried on business in partnership under
the name Les Enterprises CRP Enterprises (CRP). The issues under appeal relate
to deductions for expenses claimed to have been incurred by CRP for business
purposes. The position of the appellants is that these expenses were incurred
by CRP for subcontracting or consulting, and for meals and entertainment, in
connection with a contractual relationship between CRP and Mr. Daniel Ryan who,
according to the appellants, provided services to CRP.
[3]
Justice
Lamarre dismissed the appeals in respect of the disputed expenses. She did not
accept that the claimed amounts were expenses incurred by CRP for business
purposes, in large part because she found the oral and documentary evidence of
Mr. Presseault not to be credible. Specifically, she did not accept that there
was a contractual relationship between CRP and Mr. Ryan entitling him to
compensation. Her reasons explain clearly why she reached that conclusion; it
is not necessary to recount here the many problems she identified with the
credibility of the evidence.
[4]
In
this Court, the appellants challenge Justice Lamarre’s findings of fact. An
appeal in this Court cannot succeed on that ground in the absence of palpable
and overriding factual error. Having reviewed the record and considered the
written and oral submissions of Mr. Presseault, we conclude that the factual
conclusions reached by Justice Lamarre were reasonably open to her on the
evidence presented. We have not been able to identify any palpable and
overriding factual error. Therefore, the appeal of the judgments in Tax Court
files 2009-1203(IT)I, 2009-1210(GST)I and
2009-1212(IT)I will be dismissed with costs.
“K.
Sharlow”
FEDERAL COURT OF
APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-110-11
APPEAL
FROM JUDGMENTS OF THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE LUCIE LAMARRE OF THE TAX COURT OF
CANADA DATED FEBRUARY 7, 2011, DOCKETS NOS. 2009-1203(IT)I,
2009-1210(GST)I, 2009-1212(IT)I.
STYLE OF CAUSE: Roger
R. Presseault and Claire Presseault and Her Majesty the Queen
PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: October 17, 2012
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
OF THE COURT BY: Noël, Sharlow, Stratas JJ.A.
DELIVERED FROM THE
BENCH BY: Sharlow J.A.
APPEARANCES:
|
Roger Presseault
|
FOR
THE APPELLANTS
|
|
Ashleigh Akalehiywot
Frédéric
Morand
|
FOR
THE RESPONDENT
|
SOLICITORS
OF RECORD:
|
N/A
|
FOR THE APPELLANTS
(Mr. Roger Presseault)
|
|
Myles J. Kirvan
Deputy
Attorney General of Canada
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|
Email this Content