Maynard v. Canada

Maynard v. Canada
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2016-10-13
Neutral citation
2016 FCA 251
File numbers
A-95-16
Notes
A correction was made on September 13, 2017
Decision Content
Date: 20161013
Docket: A-95-16
Citation: 2016 FCA 251
CORAM:
NADON J.A.
STRATAS J.A.
RENNIE J.A.
BETWEEN:
ELTON MAYNARD AND LISA MAYNARD
Appellants
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on October 13, 2016.
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on October 13, 2016.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY:
RENNIE J.A.
Date: 20161013
Docket: A-95-16
Citation: 2016 FCA 251
CORAM:
NADON J.A.
STRATAS J.A.
RENNIE J.A.
BETWEEN:
ELTON MAYNARD AND LISA MAYNARD
Appellants
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on October 13, 2016).
RENNIE J.A.
[1] The appellants appeal a judgment of the Tax Court of Canada (2016 TCC 21) delivered January 28, 2016.
[2] In that judgment, the Tax Court dismissed the appeal of penalties for gross negligence that were imposed on the appellants pursuant to subsection 163(2) of the Income Tax Act in relation to their 2008 taxation year and requested loss carry back for the 2005, 2006 and 2007 years.
[3] In our view, no error has been demonstrated in the judge’s analysis of the governing legal principles and his appreciation of the evidence. Paragraphs 33-35 of the judge’s reasons provide an ample evidentiary foundation to support the conclusion of gross negligence. The judge concluded that the appellants made no effort to verify the accuracy and completeness of their returns; rather they simply signed their returns without even examining them in circumstances where they ought to have been on notice that something was amiss. The judge also concluded that had they made the most minimal effort, they would have easily noticed the false information contained in their returns.
[4] Notwithstanding Mr. Barnwell’s forceful arguments, we are satisfied that in the circumstances of this case, the conclusion of the judge that the appellants had been grossly negligent cannot be disturbed.
[5] The appeal will be dismissed with costs.
“Donald J. Rennie”
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
Docket:
A-95-16
APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MASSE OF THE TAX COURT OF CANADA DATED JANUARY 28, 2016 IN DOCKET NOS. 2013-1894 (IT)G AND 2013-1895 (IT)I.
STYLE OF CAUSE:
ELTON MAYNARD AND LISA MAYNARD v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
PLACE OF HEARING:
Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING:
October 13, 2016
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY:
NADON J.A.
STRATAS J.A.
RENNIE J.A.
DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY:
RENNIE J.A.
APPEARANCES:
Osborne G. Barnwell
For The Appellants
Craig Maw
H. Annette Evans
For The Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Osborne G. Barnwell
Barrister & Solicitor
Toronto, Ontario
For The Appellants
William F. Pentney
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
For The Respondent