Moses v. Canada

Moses v. Canada
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2002-04-10
Neutral citation
2002 FCA 132
File numbers
A-238-01
Decision Content
Date: 20020410
Docket: A-238-01
Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 132
CORAM: STONE J.A.
SHARLOW J.A.
MALONE J.A.
BETWEEN:
NIGEL MOSES
Applicant
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on Tuesday, April 9, 2002.
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on Tuesday, April 9, 2002.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: STONE J.A.
Date: 20020410
Docket: A-238-01
Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 132
CORAM: STONE J.A.
SHARLOW J.A.
MALONE J.A.
BETWEEN:
NIGEL MOSES
Applicant
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Toronto,
Ontario, on Tuesday, April 9, 2002)
STONE J.A.
[1] This is an application to judicially review a judgment of the Tax Court of Canada dated March 23, 2001 construing section 10 of the Regulations which were made under subsection 55(1) of the Employment Insurance Act.
[2] In November and December1999, the applicant was engaged as a sessional instructor at the University of Windsor to teach three courses for the period January 4, 2000 to April 25, 2000. In addition to the time spent by him during the teaching period, the applicant claimed that he spent some time in preparatory work. The learned Tax Court Judge acknowledged that this was so in his reasons where he stated:
... I am prepared to include in insurable hours preparatory time and time other than face to face hours that he spent with his students in the three courses.
Later, however, he refused to accept the applicant's evidence of the actual hours spent by him in this connection.
[3] There thus appears to be an internal inconsistency in the reasons of the Tax Court Judge. In our view this inconsistency requires to be resolved. Although the Tax Court Judge would not accept the applicant's evidence of the preparatory time spent and other time not relating to face to face hours with the applicant's students, he ought to have determined a figure for the hours so spent by the applicant and which he acknowledged were spent by him.
[4] Accordingly, we are all of the view that the judgment below must be set aside and the matter remitted to a different Judge of the Tax Court of Canada for re-hearing and
re-determination in a manner consistent with these reasons for judgment.
"A. J. Stone"
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
DOCKET: A-238-01
STYLE OF CAUSE: NIGEL MOSES
Applicant
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
DATE OF HEARING: TUESDAY, APRIL 9, 2002
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
OF THE COURT BY: STONE J.A.
DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH AT TORONTO, ONTARIO ON TUESDAY, APRIL 9,
2002.
DATED: WEDNESDAY, APRIL 10, 2002
APPEARANCES BY: Ms. Leslie Flemming
For the Applicant
Mr. Arnold H. Bornstein, and
Mr. Bobby Sood
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Lake County Community Legal Clinic
8B Ontario Street
Bracebridge, Ontario
P1L 2A7
For the Applicant
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
Date: 20020410
Docket: A-238-01
BETWEEN:
NIGEL MOSES
Applicant
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
OF THE COURT