Daoust v. Canada

Daoust v. Canada
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2011-02-23
Neutral citation
2011 FCA 67
File numbers
A-184-10
Decision Content
Federal Court of Appeal
CANADA
Cour d'appel fédérale
Date: 20110223
Docket: A-184-10
Citation: 2011 FCA 67
CORAM: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
NADON J.A.
SEXTON J.A.
BETWEEN:
MIKE DAOUST
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
Heard at Winnipeg, Manitoba, on February 23, 2011.
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Winnipeg, Manitoba, on February 23, 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
Federal Court of Appeal
CANADA
Cour d'appel fédérale
Date: 20110223
Docket: A-184-10
Citation: 2011 FCA 67
CORAM: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
NADON J.A.
SEXTON J.A.
BETWEEN:
MIKE DAOUST
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Winnipeg, Manitoba, on February 23, 2011)
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
[1] This is an appeal from a decision of the Tax Court of Canada whereby the judge, in an oral judgment rendered from the Bench on April 9, 2010 followed by an edited version of the transcript of the oral reasons signed on June 17, 2010, affirmed the income tax reassessments of the appellant for the 2005 and 2006 taxation years.
[2] At issue was the refusal by the minister of National Revenue to accept the rental losses claimed by the appellant in the amount of $9,173.77 and $6,506.38 respectively. In 2007, the losses amounted to $8,025.00, for a total of $23,725.15 for three years. This amount represented only half of the total expenses incurred by the appellant. The total rental revenue for these three years added up to $4,400.00.
[3] The expenses resulted from the appellant’s ownership of a cottage located on Moth Lake, Ontario, that he had purchased in 2004 with a view to generate income and as a capital investment.
[4] Despite the arguments of the appellant, we have not been convinced that the Tax Court of Canada committed a reviewable error when it concluded that “the profit and loss experience would indicate that the Appellant’s primary intention was not to make a profit from the rental of the cottage”: see reasons for judgment at paragraph 18.
[5] There was evidence to support this conclusion and the conclusion “that the primary intention of the Appellant was to use the cottage for personal purposes, with occasional rentals to reduce the cost of maintaining the property”: ibidem, at paragraph 24. Hence, on the basis of the evidence before it, the final and reasonable conclusion by the Tax Court that the cottage was not a source of income: ibidem, at paragraph 25.
[6] For these reasons, the appeal will be dismissed with costs.
“Gilles Létourneau”
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-184-10
STYLE OF CAUSE: MIKE DAOUST v. HER MAJESTY
THE QUEEN
PLACE OF HEARING: Winnipeg, Manitoba
DATE OF HEARING: February 23, 2011
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
OF THE COURT BY: NADON J.A.
SEXTON J.A.
DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
APPEARANCES:
Mike Daoust
SELF-REPRESENTED
Julien Bédard
FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Myles J. Kirvan
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
FOR THE RESPONDENT