Bell
J.T.C.C.
—
I
delayed
giving
judgment
in
this
case,
being
one
of
nine
virtually
identical
appeals
heard
by
this
Court,
pending
the
outcome
of
potential
appeals
from
decisions
in
the
cases
of
Enrique
Hoefele,
Thomas
D.
Zaugg,
Peter
Mikkelsen
and
Dan
Krull,
allowing
the
appeals,
and
from
the
decision
in
the
case
of
David
Krull
dismissing
the
appeal.
The
issue
in
all
nine
appeals
was
whether
a
mortgage
interest
subsidy
after
relocation
to
a
more
expensive
housing
area
was
taxable
under
either
paragraph
6(1
)(a)
or
section
80.4
of
the
Income
Tax
Act.
The
appellant
was
advised
that
the
purpose
of
the
delay
was
to
avoid
causing
him
the
effort
and
cost
of
commencing
an
appeal
to
the
Federal
Court
of
Canada
pending
the
result
of
any
appeal
that
might
be
taken
from
the
above
decisions,
or
any
of
them.
Appeals
were
commenced
in
all
five
of
the
above
cases.
I
was
not
in
agreement
with
the
decisions
of
the
judges
of
this
Court
allowing
the
appeals
aforesaid
and,
with
respect,
do
not
agree
with
the
reasons
of
the
Federal
Court
of
Appeal
upholding
same.
I
agree
entirely
with
the
dissenting
reasons
for
judgment
of
Robertson
J.A.
My
disagreement
is
quieted
by
the
doctrine
of
stare
decisis.
As
Gerald
L.
Gall
says
on
page
274
of
The
Canadian
Legal
System,
“Stare
decisis"
literally
translates
as
“to
stand
by
decided
matters”.
The
phrase
“stare
decisis"
is
itself
an
abbreviation
of
the
Latin
phrase
“stare
decisis
et
non
quieta
movere"
which
translates
as
“to
stand
by
decisions
and
not
to
disturb
settled
matters”.
Basically,
under
the
doctrine
of
stare
decisis,
the
decision
of
a
higher
court
within
the
same
jurisdiction
acts
as
binding
authority
on
a
lower
court
within
that
same
jurisdiction.
Accordingly,
the
appeal
is
allowed
with
costs.
Appeal
allowed.
Email this Content