Pilette v. R.

Pilette v. R.
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2008-11-25
Neutral citation
2008 FCA 364
File numbers
A-432-08
Decision Content
Date: 20081125 Docket: A-432-08
Citation: 2008 FCA 364
Present: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
BETWEEN:
L. PILETTE
Appellant
and
R.
Respondent
Motion dealt with in writing without appearance of the parties.
Order delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on November 25, 2008.
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
Date: 20081125
Docket: A-432-08
Citation: 2008 FCA 364
Present: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
BETWEEN:
L. PILETTE
Appellant
and
R.
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
[1] The appellant, who is representing herself, brings a motion to clarify the contents of the appeal book. She wishes the appeal book to include what she calls [translation] “public documents of Statistics Canada, from Government of Canada censuses”. These statistical data pertain to the modest average income of single-parent families with a single income, the increase in the proportion of persons pursuing university studies and the rise in student debt.
[2] She submits that the judge of the Tax Court of Canada (Court) accepted these data, having deemed them to be relevant to the debate.
[3] Lastly, she alleges that the data refer to facts that are public knowledge, or even of judicial notice.
[4] The respondent objects to the data’s inclusion in the appeal book because according to the respondent, they were not accepted by the Court or filed as evidence in the Court record.
[5] The evidence submitted by each party to deal with this matter is rather meagre since the transcript of the stenographer’s notes is not available at this time.
[6] The hearing minutes, though in abridged form, clearly show that the respondent objected to these documents’ being adduced into evidence and that the objection seems to have been sustained by the judge. Moreover, no mention of these statistical data is made in the list or description of exhibits.
[7] Contrary to the appellant’s allegations, the evidence submitted in this motion establishes on a balance of probabilities that the Court did not admit the documents in question into evidence.
[8] Furthermore, it is not obvious to me that the social facts underpinning these data are so well known and unassailable that they may be subject to judicial notice or notice without proof. Either the appellant wishes to make use of these social facts as a sociological authority or precedent applicable to this dispute and other disputes, or she wishes to use them as social sciences literature, information or data that can serve to clarify the sociological context in which the legal dispute must be decided.
[9] However, in my opinion, in order for such data to be used for such purposes, there must be a factual basis in evidence enabling the judge to safely interpret the data and draw reasonable inferences as to their validity, the validity of the method used to compile them and the evidentiary value they have in the dispute in which they are referenced: see Bell v. Canada, [2000] F.C.J. No. 680, at page 9. In the case at hand, nothing in the evidence provides a factual basis of that nature.
[10] For these reasons, the appellant’s motion will be dismissed.
“Gilles Létourneau”
J.A.
Certified true translation
Sarah Burns
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-432-08
STYLE OF CAUSE: L. PILETTE v. R.
MOTION DEALT WITH IN WRITING WITHOUT APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
DATED: November 25, 2008
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:
Lorraine Pilette
FOR THE APPELLANT
Charles Camirand
FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
FOR THE RESPONDENT