O Connor T.C.J. (Orally):
— PROCEEDINGS COMMENCED AT 10:06 a.m.
THE REGISTRAR: Before the Court, case number 96-1766(IT)G, between Shirley Sykes and Her Majesty the Queen. Counsel for the Respondent Pat Babcock.
Teskey T.C.J.:
The Appellant in its Notice of Appeal wherein it appealed assessments of income tax under Part 1.3 of the Income Tax Act (the "Ac") in respect of its 1990 and 1991 taxation years elected the informal procedure.
(1) the Appellant’s fiscal year end was May 31st in the years 1990 and 1991;
Christie A.C.J.T.C.:
These appeals are governed by the Informal Procedure provided for under section 18 and following sections of the Tax Court of Canada Act. The years under review are 1993 and 1994.
The relevant background to and what is in issue in this litigation is set out in paragraphs 8 to 14 inclusive if the Reply to the Notice of Appeal. They read:
Rip T.C.J.:
The issue in this appeal is whether Richard D. Grigg, the appellant exercised the degree of care, diligence and skill as director of Eastern Abrasive and Coatings Limited (“Company”) that a reasonably prudent person would exercised in comparable circumstances to prevent the failure of the Company to remit payroll source deductions during the period December 22, 1992 to November 4, 1993 (“period”).[1]
Christie A.C.J.T.C.:
These appeals are governed by the Informal Procedure prescribed under section 18 and following sections of the Tax Court of Canada Act. The years under review are 1991 to 1995 inclusive.
The Notice of Appeal reads:
Ref: Notice of Appeal to Minister’s Decision of Income Tax Re-Assessment for 1991, 92, 93, 94 and 1995
This notice of Appeal is under the Informal Procedure.
Mogan T.C.J.:
Sarchuk T.C.J.:
These are appeals by Burkhard Michael Nowak (the Appellant) from assessments of tax with respect to his 1987 and 1988 taxation years.
A number of different but overlapping issues have been raised by the Appellant. To minimize repetition to the extent possible, I propose to set out those facts which I perceive to be undisputed, in more or less chronological order and then deal with each issue separately. The Appellant was the only witness to testify.
Teskey T.C.J.:
The Appellant in his Notice of Appeal herein, appealed his reassessment of income tax for the year 1994 and elected the Informal Procedure.
The three issues herein are:
(a) whether the Appellant is entitled to a non-refundable tax credit for mental or physical impairment pursuant to subsection 118.3(1) of the Income Tax Act (the “Act”), in the computation of his tax payable for the 1994 taxation year;
Archambault T.C.J.:
Lamarre T.C.J.:
The appellant is appealing from an assessment dated June 12, 1996 in the amount of $9,215.85, which was made pursuant to section 227.1 of the Income Tax Act (the "Ac").
The appellant is a lawyer by profession and has had a general commercial and estate law practice in Edmonton for 46 years. As such, he has sat on the boards of many corporations.
