Evans v. Canada (Attorney General)

Evans v. Canada (Attorney General)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2003-05-08
Neutral citation
2003 FCA 218
File numbers
A-338-02
Decision Content
Date: 20030508
Docket: A-338-02
A-339-02
Citation: 2003 FCA 218
CORAM: LINDEN J.A.
ROTHSTEIN J.A.
MALONE J.A.
BETWEEN:
MICHAEL EVANS
Appellant
- and -
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
AND BETWEEN:
MICHAEL R. BOSSY
Appellant
- and -
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on May 7, 2003.
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario,
on May 7, 2003.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: ROTHSTEIN J.A.
Date: 20030508
Docket: A-338-02
A-339-02
Citation: 2003 FCA 218
CORAM: LINDEN J.A.
ROTHSTEIN J.A.
MALONE J.A.
BETWEEN:
MICHAEL EVANS
Appellant
- and -
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
AND BETWEEN:
MICHAEL R. BOSSY
Appellant
- and -
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario,
on May 7, 2003)
ROTHSTEIN J.A.
[1] These reasons apply to Court File No. A-338-02 and No. A-339-02.
[2] In spite of his able argument, counsel for the appellants has not persuaded us that this is a case that warrants intervention by this Court. The appellants concede that Beaubier J. correctly identified the criteria for determining whether an asset should be treated as an investment or a trading asset. However, they say the Trial Judge erred in his application of the criteria to the facts, and that this constitutes an error reviewable on a standard of correctness. (See Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33).
[3] We cannot agree. Had the Trial Judge failed to apply a relevant criterion it may be that he would have erred in law. However, his reasons demonstrate that he explicitly applied all the criteria the appellant says were relevant. Therefore, there is no pure error of law in respect of his application of the criteria which is reviewable on a correctness standard.
[4] The appellants' real complaint is that the Trial Judge over-emphasized the intent or motive criterion and largely discarded the other criteria. They characterize this as an error of law. However, they do not say that the Trial Judge ignored the other criteria. The question of emphasis to be given to the various criteria is for the Trial Judge to determine and absent palpable and overriding error, is not to be interfered with by this Court. In any event, we are satisfied, from the reasons, that the Trial Judge did consider the relevant criteria in his determination of the case.
[5] While the appellants argue that there were explanations for what they did that might support a different conclusion, we are satisfied that the conclusion reached by the Trial Judge was open to him on the evidence. He drew a number of inferences that were readily apparent from the facts and we cannot say that he made any palpable and overriding error in the inferences he drew.
[6] We would dismiss the appeals with costs.
"Marshall Rothstein"
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
APPEAL DIVISION
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
DOCKET: A-338-02
A-339-02
STYLE OF CAUSE: MICHAEL EVANS
Appellant
- and -
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
AND BETWEEN:
MICHAEL R. BOSSY
Appellant
- and -
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
DATE OF HEARING: WEDNESDAY, MAY 7TH, 2003
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
OF THE COURT BY: ROTHSTEIN J.A.
DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH AT TORONTO, ONTARIO ON MAY 7, 2003
DATED: WEDNESDAY, MAY 8, 2003
APPEARANCES BY: Keith Trussler
For the Appellants
Gerald Chartier
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Giffen & Partners
London, ON For the Appellants
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
For the Respondent