Date: 19980429
Docket: A-626-97
| CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DENAULT |
| THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DÉCARY |
| THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE LÉTOURNEAU |
Between:
CHRISTIANE POTVIN-GAGNON
Applicant
AND:
MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE
Respondent
JUDGMENT
The application for judicial review is allowed, the decision of the Tax Court of Canada is set aside and the matter is referred back to it to be retried by a different judge.
Pierre Denault
J.A.
Certified true translation
Peter Douglas
Date: 19980429
Docket: A-626-97
| Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DENAULT |
| THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DÉCARY |
| THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE LÉTOURNEAU |
Between: CHRISTIANE POTVIN-GAGNON
Applicant
AND:
MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE
Respondent
Hearing held at Montréal, Quebec on Wednesday, April 29, 1998
Judgment delivered at Montréal, Quebec on Wednesday, April 29, 1998
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
Date: 19980429
Docket: A-626-97
| Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DENAULT |
| THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DÉCARY |
| THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE LÉTOURNEAU |
Between: CHRISTIANE POTVIN-GAGNON
Applicant
AND:
MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the bench at Montréal
on Wednesday, April 29, 1998)
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of a Deputy Judge of the Tax Court of Canada in which he dismissed an appeal by the applicant, who alleged that the employment she held during the periods in question was insurable employment within the meaning of the Unemployment Insurance Act (the Act).
[2] After explaining the legal principles applicable in such matters from a purely theoretical standpoint and reproducing the Minister"s allegations of fact from his Reply to the Notice of Appeal as well as the applicant"s admissions at the hearing, the Deputy Judge of the Tax Court of Canada dismissed the appeal under subsection 70(2) of the Act on the following grounds alone:
| [TRANSLATION] In view of the admitted facts, the testimony and the documentary evidence, I am not satisfied that the Minister"s decisions were made in a capricious or arbitrary manner considering all the facts. |
[3] On an appeal under this subsection, the Tax Court of Canada is required to give reasons for its decision. In the instant case, the reasons do not tell the reader which evidence led the Judge to find as he did and, as Mr. Justice Hugessen wrote for this Court in Bonneau and Martin and Minister of National Revenue and Her Majesty the Queen (A-652-95 and A-653-95, February 12, 1997), which involved the same Deputy Judge, they do not say why he dismissed the applicant"s appeal.
[4] For example, some of the facts alleged by the Minister, which were crucial and necessary to arriving at his decision, were disputed by the applicant, and this challenge gave rise to different interpretations of the oral evidence and in all likelihood the documentary evidence too. However, the decision of the Tax Court of Canada is silent on this evidence, which is central to the case, and it was to be expected, at least where the more important evidence is concerned, that it would be appropriately addressed in the Judge"s reasons considering his duty under the Act to give reasons for his decision.
[5] Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the duty imposed on the Judge by Parliament to give reasons for his decision has not been discharged. Accordingly, the application for judicial review will be allowed, the decision set aside and the matter referred back to the Tax Court of Canada to be retried by a different judge.
Gilles Létourneau
J.A.
Certified true translation
Peter Douglas
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
APPEAL DIVISION
Date: 19980429
Docket: A-626-97
Between:
CHRISTIANE POTVIN-GAGNON
Applicant
AND:
MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
APPEAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT NO.: A-626-97
STYLE OF CAUSE: CHRISTIANE POTVIN-GAGNON
Applicant
| MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE |
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: April 29, 1998
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE LÉTOURNEAU
DATED April 29, 1998
APPEARANCES:
Gilbert Nadon for the applicant
Janie Payette for the respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
CAMPEAU, OUELLET, NADON
Montréal, Quebec for the applicant
GEORGE THOMSON
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario for the respondent
Email this Content