Degeer v. Canada
Court headnote
Degeer v. Canada Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2001-05-15 Neutral citation 2001 FCA 152 File numbers A-3-00 Decision Content Date: 20010515 Docket: A-3-00 Neutral citation: 2001 FCA 152 CORAM: STONE J.A. ROTHSTEIN J.A. SEXTON J.A. BETWEEN: CHRISTOPHER DEGEER Appellant - and - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent Heard at Toronto, Ontario, Monday, May 14, 2001 Judgment delivered at Toronto, Ontario, on Tuesday, May 15, 2001 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: ROTHSTEIN J.A. CONCURRED IN BY: STONE J.A. SEXTON J.A. Date: 20010515 Docket: A-3-00 Neutral citation: 2001 FCA 152 CORAM: STONE J.A. ROTHSTEIN J.A. SEXTON J.A. BETWEEN: CHRISTOPHER DEGEER Appellant - and - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT ROTHSTEIN J.A. [1] Despite the able argument of counsel for the appellant, we are not persuaded that Bell J.T.C.C. erred in finding that there was no disposition of the appellant's farm on August 15, 1992 by the appellant to his parents and that no capital loss arose therefrom. The appellant relies on Browne v. Dunn, [1894] 6 R. 67 (H.L.) in respect of the evidence of Mrs. Watson, the appellant's mother, to argue that the Crown cannot treat her evidence as not credible without cross-examining her and giving her an opportunity to explain. However, the pleadings are replete with allegations by the Crown that there was no disposition. There was clear notice that the facts in respect of the purported disposition and therefore purported reconveyance were in …
Read full judgment
Degeer v. Canada Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2001-05-15 Neutral citation 2001 FCA 152 File numbers A-3-00 Decision Content Date: 20010515 Docket: A-3-00 Neutral citation: 2001 FCA 152 CORAM: STONE J.A. ROTHSTEIN J.A. SEXTON J.A. BETWEEN: CHRISTOPHER DEGEER Appellant - and - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent Heard at Toronto, Ontario, Monday, May 14, 2001 Judgment delivered at Toronto, Ontario, on Tuesday, May 15, 2001 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: ROTHSTEIN J.A. CONCURRED IN BY: STONE J.A. SEXTON J.A. Date: 20010515 Docket: A-3-00 Neutral citation: 2001 FCA 152 CORAM: STONE J.A. ROTHSTEIN J.A. SEXTON J.A. BETWEEN: CHRISTOPHER DEGEER Appellant - and - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT ROTHSTEIN J.A. [1] Despite the able argument of counsel for the appellant, we are not persuaded that Bell J.T.C.C. erred in finding that there was no disposition of the appellant's farm on August 15, 1992 by the appellant to his parents and that no capital loss arose therefrom. The appellant relies on Browne v. Dunn, [1894] 6 R. 67 (H.L.) in respect of the evidence of Mrs. Watson, the appellant's mother, to argue that the Crown cannot treat her evidence as not credible without cross-examining her and giving her an opportunity to explain. However, the pleadings are replete with allegations by the Crown that there was no disposition. There was clear notice that the facts in respect of the purported disposition and therefore purported reconveyance were in issue. In any event, there is no indication that the Tax Court Judge disbelieved Mrs. Watson. Even believing her testimony that she offered to reconvey the farm to the appellant, the Tax Court Judge had concluded that she would do whatever the appellant asked her to do with respect to legal transactions involving the farm. This is all consistent with a scheme whereby the Appellant would appear to be disposing of the farm to crystalize a capital loss while, in the non-arms length circumstances of the relationship between him and his mother and stepfather, he retained the beneficial ownership of the farm. [2] The purported transfer of the farm from the appellant to his parents was made without any cancellation or adjustment of the promissory note for $1,275,000.00 that the appellant had given his parents when the farm was transferred to him originally. There is simply no credible explanation as to why, if he genuinely was disposing of the farm to his parents, no adjustment to the promissory note was made. In my view, this was a key piece of evidence which the Tax Court Judge was entitled to take into account in determining that the appellant's evidence to the effect that he intended to dispose of the farm in August, 1992 was not credible. [3] All the facts surrounding the purported transactions caused the learned Tax Court Judge to conclude that there was no disposition by the appellant and no capital loss. There is no basis upon which this Court should interfere with that finding. [4] With respect to the penalties assessed, the Tax Court Judge found that the appellant knowingly made false statements in his returns and found that he was subject to the penalties that were assessed. Again there is no basis for this Court interfering with that finding. [5] I would dismiss the appeal with costs. "Marshall Rothstein" J.A. "I agree A. J. Stone" "I agree "J. E. Sexton" FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record DOCKET: A-3-00 STYLE OF CAUSE: CHRISTOPHER DEGEER Appellant - and - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent DATE OF HEARING: MONDAY, MAY 14, 2001 PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: ROTHSTEIN J.A. CONCURRED IN BY: STONE J.A. SEXTON J.A. DATED: TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2001 APPEARANCES: Mr. William Innes, and Mr. Matthew Williams, and Mr. Michael Colborne For the Appellant Mr. Gordon Bourgard For the Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Thorsteinssons Barristers & Solicitors Box 611, BCE Place, 36th Floor 161 Bay Street Toronto, Ontario M5J 2S1 For the Appellant Morris Rosenberg Deputy Attorney General of Canada For the Respondent FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL Date: 20010515 Docket: A-3-00 BETWEEN: CHRISTOPHER DEGEER Appellant - and - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Date: 20010515 Docket: A-3-00 Toronto, Ontario, Tuesday, the 15th day of May, 2001 CORAM: STONE J.A. ROTHSTEIN J.A. SEXTON J.A. BETWEEN: CHRISTOPHER DEGEER Appellant - and - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent JUDGMENT The appeal is dismissed with costs. "A. J. Stone" J.A.
Source: decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca