Bell
J.T.C.C.—
This
is
an
appeal
heard
under
the
informal
procedure
of
this
Court
in
respect
of
the
appellant’s
1982
taxation
year.
The
issues
in
this
case
are
the
same,
but
for
some
amounts,
as
those
in
the
case
of
Khan
v.
Canada,
[1995]
1
C.T.C.
2311.
Respondent’s
counsel
and
the
appellant’s
agent,
Mr.
A.
L.
Schellenberg,
agreed
that
the
evidence
of
Mr.
Mogg
in
the
Khan
appeal
and
the
evidence
of
Mr.
Schellenberg
in
the
Khan
appeal
would
be
applicable
to
this
case.
They
also
agreed
the
argument
of
respondent’s
counsel
would
be
applicable
with
the
proviso
that
additional
arguments
could
be
made
and
further
that
the
statement
of
sections
of
the
Act
relied
upon
by
the
respondent
that
were
deleted
in
the
Khan
case
should
also
be
deleted
in
this
case.
Although
there
is
a
slight
variation
in
the
facts
from
those
presented
in
the
appeal
of
Hazrah
Khan,
that
variation
does
not
persuade
me
not
to
apply
the
reasoning
in
that
appeal.
Mr.
Schellenberg’s
submission
was,
in
essence,
a
recitation
of
facts
established
by
the
respondent.
The
arguments
advanced
by
him
fell
far
short
of
legal
arguments
available
respecting
the
points
in
issue.
The
appellant
has
failed
to
meet
the
onus
upon
her
as
described
in
the
Hazrah
Khan
reasons
for
judgment,
copy
of
which
is
attached
hereto.
Accordingly,
the
appeal
is
dismissed.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content