Linden
J
A.:
We
have
not
been
persuaded
that
the
Tax
Court
Judge
erred
in
arriving
at
the
decision
in
this
case.
Given
that
there
was
no
request
for
an
adjournment,
it
cannot
be
said
that
there
was
a
denial
of
natural
justice
in
these
circumstances
by
the
Judge
failing
to
suggest
that
an
adjournment
might
be
sought
in
order
to
prepare
better
documentary
evidence.
Even
though
the
informal
procedure
was
used,
it
was
up
to
the
taxpayer
to
prepare
the
necessary
documentation
for
the
hearing.
There
was
no
evidence
adduced
as
to
the
“exact
dimensions”
of
any
possible
incompetence
of
the
taxpayer’s
agent,
a
Chartered
Accountant,
who
presented
the
case
to
the
Court,
nor
that
such
incompetence
contributed
to
the
outcome.
In
fact,
some
considerable
success
was
achieved
as
a
result
of
the
presentation.
The
Tax
Court
Judge
did
not
lay
down
as
a
prerequisite
for
proving
income
or
deductions
the
requirement
of
keeping
books
and
records;
he
was
merely
indicating
the
advisability
of
doing
so,
if
the
taxpayer
hoped
to
convince
the
Court
of
the
propriety
of
his
income
figures
and
deductions.
The
Tax
Court
Judge
demonstrated
his
own
understanding
of
the
law
when
he
allowed
certain
deductions
and
amendments
to
the
reassessment,
even
without
any
documentary
support
for
doing
so,
purely
on
the
basis
of
oral
evidence
presented.
In
making
the
factual
error
to
the
effect
that
the
taxpayer
was
a
Chartered
Accountant,
the
Tax
Court
Judge
did
not
require
a
higher
standard
of
proof
from
the
taxpayer.
The
minor
factual
slip
was
understandable
given
the
fact
that:
1)
the
taxpayer
earned
professional
fees
for
doing
accounting
and
bookkeeping
work
for
others;
2)
she
testified
that
she
was
“an
accountant”;
and
3)
the
taxpayer
was
represented
at
the
hearing
by
a
Chartered
Accountant
as
her
agent.
This
trivial
mistake
did
not
affect
result
of
the
case
and
certainly
did
not
amount
to
a
finding
of
fact
made
in
a
“perverse
or
Capricious
manner
or
without
regard
for
the
material”
as
required
by
Section
18.1(4)(d)
of
the
Federal
Court
Act.
We
do
not
wish
to
leave
this
case
without
mentioning
a
procedural
issue
which
arose.
Counsel
for
the
applicant
filed
a
“Supplementary
Application
Record”
which
consisted
solely
of
additional
legal
argument,
purporting
to
do
so
pursuant
to
Rule
1608.
This
rule
does
not
authorize
additional
legal
argument
to
be
filed,
but
rather
is
meant
to
permit
a
party
to
file
additional
factual
evidence
to
meet
the
Respondent’s
case,
if
thought
to
be
advisable.
The
application
will
be
dismissed.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content