Archambault v. Canada

Archambault v. Canada
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2001-11-21
Neutral citation
2001 FCA 354
File numbers
A-80-00
Decision Content
Date: 20011121
Docket: A-80-00
Montréal, Quebec, November 21, 2001
Coram: RICHARD C.J.
DÉCARY J.A.
NOËL J.A.
BETWEEN:
RENÉ ARCHAMBAULT
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
JUDGMENT
The appeal is dismissed with costs.
J. Richard
C.J.
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L. Trad. a.
Date: 20011121
Docket: A-80-00
Neutral citation: 2001 FCA 354
Coram: RICHARD C.J.
DÉCARY J.A.
NOËL J.A.
BETWEEN:
RENÉ ARCHAMBAULT
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
Hearing held at Montréal, Quebec on November 21, 2001
Judgment from the bench at Montréal, Quebec on November 21, 2001
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: NOËL J.A.
Date: 20011121
Docket: A-80-00
Neutral citation: 2001 FCA 354
Coram: RICHARD C.J.
DÉCARY J.A.
NOËL J.A.
BETWEEN:
RENÉ ARCHAMBAULT
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the bench at Montréal, Quebec
on November 21, 2001)
NOËL J.A.
[1] Judge Archambault did not commit any error which could justify our intervention.
[2] With respect to the cost of creating or recreating the apple orchard, the evidence allowed the trial judge to conclude that this was a long-term expense, the deduction of which is prohibited by s. 18(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act.
[3] With respect to expenses relating to wages, the trial judge concluded at p. 21 of his reasons:
[71] The inconsistencies in Mr. Archambault's evidence are a good illustration of how difficult it is to prove expenses where one has deliberately chosen not to keep proper records of such expenses and has agreed to pay one's casual workers under the table.
[72] All in all, Mr. Archambault's evidence did not show on a balance of probabilities that the Minister incorrectly assessed the amount of his taxable income and his tax. By agreeing to pay the pruners and pickers under the table and by not taking care to keep detailed records of the amounts he paid, Mr. Archambault ran a very high risk that the deduction of his expenses would be disallowed. There was a heavy burden upon him and he was unable to discharge that burden. I believe it is fair to state here that Mr. Archambault has been the author of his own misfortune.
[4] We can find no palpable or overriding error in his assessment of the evidence.
[5] The appeal will be dismissed with costs.
Marc Noël
J.A.
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L. Trad. a.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
Date: 20011121
Docket: A-80-00
Between:
RENÉ ARCHAMBAULT
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
REASONS FOR JURDGMENT
OF THE COURT
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
APPEAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
FILE: A-80-00
CORAM: RICHARD C.A.
DÉCARY J.A.
NOËL J.A.
STYLE OF CAUSE: RENÉ ARCHAMBAULT
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: November 21, 2001
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: NOËL J.A.
DATED: November 21, 2001
APPEARANCES:
Robert Jodoin FOR THE APPELLANT
Nathalie Labbé FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Robert Jodoin FOR THE APPELLANT
Granby, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Montréal, Quebec