Aikman v. Canada

Aikman v. Canada
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2002-03-19
Neutral citation
2002 FCA 114
File numbers
A-135-00
Decision Content
Date: 20020319
Docket: A-135-00
Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 114
CORAM: RICHARD C.J.
DÉCARY J.A.
NOËL J.A.
BETWEEN:
JOHN AIKMAN and the persons
listed in Schedule A
Appellants
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
Heard at Montreal, Quebec, on March 19, 2002.
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Montreal, Quebec, on March 19, 2002.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: NOËL J.A.
Date: 20020319
Docket: A-135-00
Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 114
CORAM: RICHARD C.J.
DÉCARY J.A.
NOËL J.A.
BETWEEN:
JOHN AIKMAN and the persons
listed in Schedule A
Appellants
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Montreal, Quebec
on March 19, 2002.)
NOËL J.A.
[1] This is an appeal from a judgment of Judge Bowman of the Tax Court of Canada ([2000] T.C.J. No. 72) dismissing the appeal brought by the appellants from the redetermination of the fair market value of a disassembled prototype of a lighter-than-air, heavy-lift vehicle known as the Cyclo-Crane, by the Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board (the Board).
[2] Even though counsel for the appellants raised various questions before us, the only real point in issue is whether the Tax Court Judge applied a wrong principle, or made a manifest or palpable and overriding error, in confirming the redetermination of fair market value made by the Board. In our view, it has not been shown that the Tax Court Judge committed any such error.
[3] Specifically, it had not been shown that the Tax Court Judge erred in finding as a fact that there was no market for the Cyclo-Crane. The Tax Court Judge noted that in order for such a market to exist, the practical problems relating to the operation of the Cyclo-Crane had to be overcome. He concluded that these problems had not been overcome and that there was no market for the Cyclo-Crane either in the damaged state in which it was donated or in its restored state. This is a conclusion that was open to him, and which allowed him to disregard the opinion expressed by the appellants' experts on this point.
[4] With respect to the appellants' contention that the Tax Court Judge was bound to allow the appeal once flaws had been identified in the opinion expressed by the respondent's experts, we can do no better than to repeat what Judge Bowman said at paragraph 91 of his reasons:
It does not quite work that way. I agree that the $200,000 U.S. value assigned by the CCPERB is higher than that given by either of the respondent's experts and higher than the figure of $200,000 Cdn. suggested by a Vice-President of MacMillan Bloedel. It does not follow, however, that the opinion of the appellants' experts automatically becomes the only evidence on which the court can rely. To put it differently, merely to show that there are flaws in the Board's determination neither shifts the evidential burden to the respondent nor justifies the acceptance of the appellants' position. An appellant who seeks to challenge a determination of value by the Board continues, if he or she is to obtain any type of meaningful relief, to have the primary burden of establishing on a preponderance of evidence a valuation that is higher than that determined by the Board.
[5] In this instance, the Tax Court Judge, after carefully reviewing the evidence, came to the conclusion that it did not support a fair market value in excess of $200,000 U.S. This is a conclusion that is justified by the evidence and which has not been shown to have been arrived at in error.
[6] Finally, we do not see any basis upon which we could reverse the award of costs made by the Tax Court Judge.
[7] The appeal will be dismissed with costs.
"Marc Noël"
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
APPEAL DIVISION
Date: 20020319
Docket: A-135-00
BETWEEN:
JOHN AIKMAN and the persons
listed in Schedule A
Appellants
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
APPEAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-135-00
STYLE OF CAUSE: JOHN AIKMAN and the persons
listed in Schedule A
Appellants
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: Montreal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: March 19, 2002
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY NOËL J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: RICHARD C.J.
DÉCARY J.A.
DATED: March 19, 2002
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Christopher R. Mostovac
Ms. Valérie Pelletier
FOR THE APPELLANTS
Ms. Chantal Jacquier
FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Ravinsky Ryan
Montreal, Quebec
FOR THE APPELLANTS
Morris A. Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Montreal, Quebec
FOR THE RESPONDENT