1.
As
appears
from
the
record
of
this
Honourable
Court,
the
plaintiff
brought
an
action
on
or
about
March
10,
1983
against
the
notices
of
reassessment
issued
by
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
on
June
24,
1980
for
the
plaintiffs
1976,
1977
and
1978
taxation
years;
2.
As
appears
from
the
record
of
this
Honourable
Court,
and
in
particular
the
statement
of
claim
submitted
on
March
10,
1983,
in
submitting
its
tax
returns
for
the
1976,
1977
and
1978
taxation
years
the
plaintiff
reported
as
capital
gains
profits
from
the
sale
of
seven
properties
in
the
years
in
question;
3.
As
appears
from
the
record
of
this
Court,
and
in
particular
the
statement
of
claim
filed
by
the
plaintiff
on
or
about
March
10,
1983,
one
of
the
conclusions
of
the
latter
read
as
follows:
Vary
the
notices
of
reassessment
dated
June
24,
1980
to
treat
the
income
from
the
sale
of
the
properties
described
in
paragraphs
8,
10
and
12
as
a
capital
gain
and
not
as
business
income;
4,
As
appears
from
the
record
of
this
Court,
Paul
Rouleau
J.
rendered
judgment
on
June
3,
1986,
the
pronouncement
of
which
reads
as
follows:
The
appeal
by
the
plaintiff
is
allowed
and
the
assessments
made
by
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
for
1976,
1977
and
1978
are
vacated.
The
plaintiff
will
be
entitled
to
his
costs;
5.
The
reassessments
issued
by
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
on
June
24,
1980
for
the
plaintiff's
1976,
1977
and
1978
taxation
years
had
the
effect
of
invalidating
any
earlier
assessment
for
the
said
taxation
years;
The
fact
that
these
reassessments
dated
June
24,
1980
were
vacated
as
provided
by
the
pronouncement
of
the
judgment
cannot
have
the
effect
of
reviving
the
earlier
assessments
made
before
the
reassessments
of
June
24,
1980,
and
accordingly
the
pronouncement
of
the
judgment
does
not
allow
the
Minister
to
issue
notices
of
reassessment
to
tax
the
profits
from
the
sale
of
seven
properties
during
the
plaintiff's
1976,
1977
and
1978
taxation
years
as
capital
gains;
6.
By
accidentally
omitting
to
deal
with
a
matter,
namely
allowing
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
to
proceed
to
issue
reassessments
pursuant
to
the
reasons
for
judgment,
Rouleau
J.
pronounced
judgment
ultra
petita,
that
is,
a
judgment
going
beyond
the
conclusions
contained
in
the
plaintiff's
statement
of
claim;
7.
The
defendant
believes
that
if
the
Court
had
not
accidentally
omitted
to
consider
this
requirement,
the
reassessments
at
issue
would
not
have
been
simply
vacated
but
would
have
been
referred
back
to
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
for
reassessment
on
the
basis
that
the
profit
from
the
sale
of
the
seven
properties
made
by
the
plainitff
during
its
1976,
1977
and
1978
taxation
years
was
a
capital
gain.
Counsel
for
the
plaintiff-respondent
notified
the
Registrar
of
the
Court
that
she
did
not
object
to
the
filing
of
this
motion
and
would
in
any
case
be
making
no
reply
to
it.
I
should
note
that
the
judgment
which
is
the
subject
of
this
motion
was
rendered
on
June
3,
1986
and
that
the
motion
at
bar
was
drawn
up
on
June
16,
1986,
that
is
beyond
the
deadline
specified
in
Rule
337(5).
Though
the
defendant-applicant
did
not
at
the
outset
formally
request
an
extension
of
time
to
file
such
a
motion,
I
hereby
extend
the
deadline
as
I
am
free
to
do
under
the
said
Rule.
It
seems
clear
from
reading
the
motion
that
I
accidentally
omitted
to
deal
with
the
matter
of
varying
the
notices
of
assessment
dated
June
24,
1980
and
that
I
substituted
in
place
of
them
a
conclusion
which
was
not
even
sought
by
the
plaintiff-respondent,
and
which
in
short
prevented
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
from
giving
effect
to
the
judgment.
I
accordingly
allow
the
motion
at
bar
and
vary
the
terms
of
the
pronouncement
of
judgment
of
June
3,
1986
to
read
as
follows:
The
motion
at
bar
is
allowed
without
further
costs
for
the
defendantapplicant.
Email this Content