Cleary v. Canada

Cleary v. Canada
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2006-02-28
Neutral citation
2006 FCA 88
File numbers
A-680-04, A-681-04
Decision Content
Date: 20060228
Dockets: A-680-04
A-681-04
Citation: 2006 FCA 88
CORAM : DÉCARY J.A.
NOËL J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
BETWEEN:
A-680-04
GILLES CLEARY
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
A-681-04
DANNY CLEARY
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
Hearing held at Montréal, Quebec, on February 28, 2006.
Judgment delivered from the bench at Montréal, Quebec, on February 28, 2006.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: NOËL J.A.
Date: 20060228
Dockets: A-680-04
A-681-04
Citation: 2006 FCA 88
CORAM : DÉCARY J.A.
NOËL J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
BETWEEN:
A-680-04
GILLES CLEARY
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
A-681-04
DANNY CLEARY
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the bench at Montréal, Quebec, on February 28, 2006.)
NOËL J.A.:
[1] These are two appeals against decisions by the Honourable Mr. Justice Archambault of the Tax
Court of Canada refusing to grant the appellants a tax exemption under section 87 of the IndianAct with respect to business income on the ground that the entitlement to these earnings was not situated on a reserve.
[2] The appellants do not take issue with the the trial judge as to the approach that the courts must follow to identify the situs of business income (see for example Southwind v. Canada, 98 DTC 6084; Bell v. Canada, [2000] F.C.J. No. 680 (QL).
[3] The appellants do, however, take issue with him for applying the tests connected with this approach with a contradictory rigour. We do not share this view.
[4] The trial judge was faced with an attempt by the appellants to graft an activity situated on a reserve in the Lac Saint Jean region onto their well-established and very profitable business in Longueuil. After carrying out a meticulous review of the evidence and in light of the applicable tests, he found that the $1.2 million in profits they wanted exempted from taxation essentially constituted “an artificial extraction of profit made by . . . [the business] in the Montréal region” (Reasons, paragraph 43).
[5] This was a conclusion open to the Court, based on the evidence.
[6] For these reasons, we are of the view that the appeal must be dismissed with a single set of costs.
“Marc Noël”
J.A.
Certified true translation
Michael Palles
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-680-04 & A-681-04
NOTICE OF APPEAL OF A DECISION BY THE TAX COURT OF CANADA DATED NOVEMBER 2004, DOCKETS 2001-3163(IT)G AND 2001-3164(IT)G.
STYLE OF CAUSE: GILLES CLEARY v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN and DANNY CLEARY v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: February 28, 2006
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: Décary J.A.
Noël J.A.
Pelletier J.A.
DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: Noël J.A.
APPEARANCES:
Serge Fournier
FOR THE APPELLANTS
Nathalie Lessard
FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
BCF LLP
Montréal, Quebec
FOR THE APPELLANTS
John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Montréal, Quebec
FOR THE RESPONDENT