Canada v. Robertson

Canada v. Robertson
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2006-01-17
Neutral citation
2006 FCA 18
File numbers
A-176-05, A-177-05, A-178-05
Decision Content
Date: 20060117
Dockets: A-176-05
A-177-05
A-178-05
Citation: 2006 FCA 18
CORAM: ROTHSTEIN J.A.
SHARLOW J.A.
MALONE J.A.
A-176-05
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Appellant
and
TERREN ROBERTSON
Respondent
A-177-05
A-178-05
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Appellant
and
VANTA ROBERTSON
Respondent
Heard at Vancouver, British Columbia, on January 17, 2006.
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Vancouver, British Columbia, on January 17, 2006.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: SHARLOW J.A.
Date: 20060117
Dockets: A-176-05
A-177-05
A-178-05
Citation: 2006 FCA 18
CORAM: ROTHSTEIN J.A.
SHARLOW J.A.
MALONE J.A.
A-176-05
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Appellant
and
TERREN ROBERTSON
Respondent
A-177-05
A-178-05
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Appellant
and
VANTA ROBERTSON
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Vancouver, British Columbia on January 17, 2006)
SHARLOW J.A.
[1] The Crown is appealing a decision of a judge of the Tax Court of Canada to adjourn a hearing that was convened to consider the respondents' application for an extension of time to file notices of objection. A decision to adjourn a proceeding is a discretionary one. This Court normally will not interfere with such a decision in the absence of an error of law. No such error is demonstrated in this case.
[2] The Judge did not err in ordering the Minister to meet with the respondents to consider whether their assessments could be reconsidered. There is evidence in the record upon which the Judge could reasonably have concluded that there is at least one egregious error in the assessments to which the respondents are trying to object. It is obvious that the Judge was attempting to encourage the Minister to consider correcting that error, without the need of further litigation. That is a proper case management consideration, especially in informal proceedings.
[3] The Minister has the statutory authority to correct an erroneous assessment by making a new assessment within the statutory time limit or, in certain income tax cases, even after the expiry of the statutory time limit, whether or not the respondents succeed in obtaining an extension of time to file notices of objection.
[4] Counsel for the Minister suggests that there is a rule or policy that such corrections cannot be made while there is an outstanding court proceeding. We doubt that such a policy, if it exists, can be as rigid as counsel suggests, because if it is that rigid it would amount to an improper fetter on the Minister's discretion.
[5] This appeal will be dismissed with costs, which are fixed at $500, inclusive of disbursements and GST. The formal judgment will fix a new time limit for the conclusion of discussions between the Minister and the respondents.
(Sgd.) "Karen R. Sharlow"
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-176-05
A-177-05
A-178-05
STYLE OF CAUSE: Her Majesty The Queen v. Terren Robertson Et Al
PLACE OF HEARING: Vancouver, British Columbia
DATE OF HEARING: January 17, 2006
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT: ROTHSTEIN, SHARLOW, MALONE JJ.A
DATED: January 17, 2006
APPEARANCES:
Ms. Lisa M. Macdonell
Ms. Nadine Taylor Pickering
FOR THE APPELLANT
Mr. Ernest Bauer
FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Vancouver, BC
FOR THE APPELLANT