Sarmadi – Webb JA prunes the flourish of a taxpayer “demolishing” the Minister’s assumptions with a prima facie case

Webb JA essentially indicated that unnecessary confusion had resulted from statements such as “This initial onus of “demolishing” the Minister's exact assumptions is met where the appellant makes out at least a prima facie case… . Where the Minister's assumptions have been ‘demolished’ by the appellant, ‘the onus . . . shifts to the Minister to rebut the prima facie case’ made out by the appellant” (per L’Heureux-Dubé J in Hickman Motors).

He stated:

[A] taxpayer should have the burden to prove, on a balance of probabilities, any facts that are alleged by that taxpayer in their notice of appeal and that are denied by the Crown. … If there are facts that were assumed by the Minister in reassessing a taxpayer and that are not inconsistent with the facts as pled by that taxpayer...the taxpayer [must] prove, on a balance of probabilities, that these facts assumed by the Minister (and which are in dispute and are not exclusively or peculiarly within the Minister’s knowledge) are not correct. … Once all of the evidence is presented, the Tax Court judge should then (and only then) determine whether the taxpayer has satisfied this burden.

That’s it.

Stratas JA (with whom Woods JA agreed) stated that he found “much of what [Webb JA said] … to be thoughtful, illuminating and attractive,” but also that he declined “to express a definitive opinion on the correctness of his views on this fundamental point.”

Neal Armstrong. Summary of Sarmadi v. Canada, 2017 FCA 131 under General Concepts – Onus.