Fortin v. The Queen, docket 2000-4686-IT-I (Informal Procedure)

[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]

2000-4686(IT)I

BETWEEN:

CHRISTIANE FORTIN,

Appellant,

and

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,

Respondent.

Appeal heard on July 24, 2002, at Chicoutimi, Quebec, by

the Honourable Judge Alain Tardif

Appearances

For the Appellant:                                No one appeared

Counsel for the Respondent:                Martin Gentile

JUDGMENT

          The appeal from the assessment made under the Income Tax Act for the 1996 taxation year is dismissed, with costs in the amount of $1,000, in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.

Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 29th day of July 2002.

"Alain Tardif"

J.T.C.C.

Translation certified true

on this 12^th day of November 2003.

Sophie Debbané, Revisor

[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]

Date: 20020729

Docket: 2000-4686(IT)I

BETWEEN:

CHRISTIANE FORTIN,

Appellant,

and

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,

Respondent.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Tardif, J.T.C.C.

[1]      This is an appeal for the 1996 taxation year.

[2]      In making and confirming the assessment at the origin of this appeal, the respondent assumed the following facts:

[TRANSLATION]

(a)         in the year in issue, the appellant was an employee of Revenue Canada, now the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency;

(b)         the case arises from an internal investigation concerning certain employees of the Jonquière Tax Centre who had set up a scheme to provide certain persons with tax refunds to which they were not entitled in consideration for a commission based on a percentage of the said refunds;

(c)         in filing her income tax return for the 1996 taxation year, the appellant claimed $4,405 in medical expenses;

(d)         the Minister obtained from Revenu Québec copies of receipts that the appellant had appended to her provincial income tax return of the medical expenses claimed for the 1996 taxation year;

(e)         each of the receipts of $2,000 states that the amount was paid by the appellant for myopia laser treatments and was signed by means of a stamp in the name of Dr. René-Gilles Bernier;

(f)          Dr. René-Gilles Bernier has confirmed in writing that the appellant was not a patient and that he never performed laser surgery on her for myopia;

(g)         the appellant admitted that she had never undergone laser surgery for myopia;

(h)         in the Minister's view, the appellant used false receipts to claim $4,000 in medical expenses;

(i)          in filing her income tax return for the 1996 taxation year, the appellant made a misrepresentation attributable to neglect, carelessness or wilful default or committed any fraud in filing the return or in supplying any information under the "Act";

(j)          in using false receipts to substantiate a $4,000 claim for medical expenses for the 1996 taxation year, the appellant knowingly, or under circumstances amounting to gross negligence, made or participated in, assented to or acquiesced in the making of, a false statement or omission in a return filed in respect of the 1996 taxation year, as a result of which the tax which she would have been required to pay based on the information provided in the income tax return filed for that year was less than the amount of tax payable for that year.

[3]      Despite the highly damning facts, particularly those described in subparagraphs 6(e), (f) and (g), Ms. Fortin decided to file a notice of appeal to dispute the assessment and the penalty that she was assessed under subsection 163(2) of the Income Tax Act (the "Act").

[4]      The decision to institute an appeal is a legitimate one, indeed even the expression of a fundamental right. However, deciding, without any apparent reason, not to appear in support of one's appeal, the quality of which was clearly more than debatable, constitutes an abuse.

[5]      Furthermore, such behaviour has the effect of resulting in an unacceptable waste of public funds, while penalizing litigants whose cases are awaiting a hearing date.

[6]      In view of the appellant's failure to appear, the respondent moved that the appeal be dismissed.

[7]      I allow the respondent's oral motion and dismiss the appeal, with costs, which I set at $1,000 for the reasons cited above.

Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 29th day of July 2002.

"Alain Tardif"

J.T.C.C.

Translation certified true

on this 12^th day of November 2003.

Sophie Debbané, Revisor