Date: 20010130
Docket: 2000-3244-IT-I
BETWEEN:
LORRAINE STRATKOTTER,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
Reasons for Judgment
(delivered orally from the Bench at Calgary, Alberta on
November 21, 2000)
Bell, J.T.C.C.
[1]
Well, I understand your last comments. We don't live in a
world where we can have perfection in any system because we are
human beings and it's my understanding from what I have read
and what I have heard that an immense amount of effort went into
the process of determining how the Income Tax Act should
be amended. Ms. Mah has referred to a fair amount of that from
the '98 budget and whether it's satisfactory to us all or
not, four options were selected that are in there and those
options would, of course, include and certainly wouldn't
exclude, anything that the parties themselves wanted to agree
upon, whether they wanted to have it by written agreement or by
an agreement supported by a Court order and that type of
thing.
[2] I
have absolutely no doubt about what the law of this land is in
relation to your problem because the Supreme Court has expressed
it quite clearly and I simply adopt Ms. Mah's argument in
that regard, because it was substantially a re-statement of what
the Supreme Court of Canada has said. So I have no ability to try
to change that law, because it's quite clear and succinct and
comprehensively expressed. That, to me, concludes your argument
with respect to discrimination under section 15(1) of the
Constitution.
[3]
So far as your latter comments are concerned, I think I can tell
you that I understand what you are saying. There is no perfection
in our system either so far as the ability to pursue those who
should pay is concerned. We simply don't have that
perfection. There is a constant attempt to make it better but
those facts which you say preclude you from having the option to
change the circumstance under which you find yourself are not
something that I can adjudicate upon.
[4] I
have no experience, I've heard some tales about what happens
when these matters are re-negotiated and you can tell right away
what the important negotiating factors to both sides would be. If
the payor, male or female, does not want to -- sorry, wants a
deduction and is not going to get it, he or she will want to pay
less and the opposite happens on the other side so we cannot
remove the human emotion, human factor, from those types of
negotiations. However, Ms. Stratkotter, you are simply not
in a position to succeed in this appeal because of the decision
in the Thibaudeau v. H.M.Q. 95 DTC 5273 case and because
these options have not been pursued and no other option has been
followed.
[5]
It's absolutely right for you to use your opportunity to come
to Court to express yourself and I thank you, Ms. Mah, for the
clarity in your presentation.
[6]
So this case will be dismissed.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 30th day of January 2001.
"R.D. Bell"
J.T.C.C.
Email this Content