Patel v. Canada

Patel v. Canada
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2020-01-27
Neutral citation
2020 FCA 27
File numbers
A-411-19, A-412-19, A-80-19, A-81-19, A-82-19, A-83-19
Notes
A correction was made on February 6, 2020.
Decision Content
Date: 20200127
Dockets: A-81-19 (lead), A-82-19, A-412-19,
A-80-19, A-83-19 A-411-19
Citation: 2020 FCA 27
CORAM:
NADON J.A.
WEBB J.A.
BOIVIN J.A.
Dockets: A-81-19
A-82-19
A-412-19
BETWEEN:
PIYUSH PATEL
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
AND
Dockets: A-80-19
A-83-19
A-411-19
BETWEEN:
PAUL BENNINGER
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
Heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on January 27, 2020.
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, on January 27, 2020.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY:
NADON J.A.
Date: 20200127
Dockets: A-81-19 (lead), A-82-19, A-412-19,
A-80-19, A-83-19, A-411-19
Citation: 2020 FCA 27
CORAM:
NADON J.A.
WEBB J.A.
BOIVIN J.A.
Dockets: A-81-19
A-82-19
A-412-19
BETWEEN:
PIYUSH PATEL
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
AND
Dockets: A-81-19
A-82-19
A-411-19
BETWEEN:
PAUL BENNINGER
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, on January 27, 2020).
NADON J.A.
[1] We are all agreed that the Tax Court of Canada’s judge (the Judge) erred in concluding that subsection 171(2) of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Suppl.) (the Act), “cannot be applied to the appeal of Mr. Patel and Benninger…” (Transcript of oral reasons, February 15, 2019 in files (2016-4750 (IT) G, 2016-4571 (IT) G, AB, Tab 6, p. 27).
[2] In our view, the provision clearly allowed the judge, if he was so inclined in the exercise of his discretion, to give effect to the parties’ request to bifurcate the issues, as per their letter to the Tax Court of November 19, 2018.
[3] We also wish to say that considering that subsection 171(2) of the Act is applicable and thus not a bar to the parties’ request, the fact that the parties are in agreement with respect to the manner in which their tax appeals should proceed, is a highly relevant, although not determinative, consideration in the exercise of the discretion to allow or not the parties’ request.
[4] The appeals will therefore be allowed, the Tax Court of Canada’s decision of February 18, 2019, as amended by his Order of October 24, 2019, will be set aside and the matter will be returned to the Judge for reconsideration of the parties’ request in the light of these reasons;
[5] Copy of these reasons will be filed also in appeals A-82-19, A-412-19, A-80-19, A-83-19 and A-411-19 as reasons therein.
"M. Nadon"
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
Dockets:
A-81-19 (lead), A-82-19, A-412-19, A-80-19, A-83-19, A-411-19
DOCKETS:
A-81-19
A-82-19
A-412-19
STYLE OF CAUSE:
PIYUSH PATEL v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
DOCKETS:
A-80-19
A-83-19
A-411-19
STYLE OF CAUSE:
PAUL BENNINGER v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
PLACE OF HEARING:
Ottawa, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING:
January 27, 2020
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY:
NADON J.A.
WEBB J.A.
BOIVIN J.A.
DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY:
NADON J.A.
APPEARANCES:
Gordon Bourgard
Kristen Duerhammer
For The Appellants
PIYUSH PATEL AND
PAUL BENNINGER
Natalie Goulard
Simon Vincent
For The Respondent
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
KPMG Law LLP
Toronto, Ontario
For The Appellants
PIYUSH PATEL AND PAUL BENNINGER
Nathalie G. Drouin
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
For The Respondent
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN