Bisaillon c. La Reine

Bisaillon c. La Reine
Court (s) Database
Tax Court of Canada Judgments
Date
2005-01-11
Neutral citation
2005 TCC 17
File numbers
2002-830(IT)G
Judges and Taxing Officers
Paul Bédard
Subjects
Income Tax Act
Decision Content
Docket: 2002-830(IT)G
BETWEEN:
ROBERT BISAILLON,
Applicant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
____________________________________________________________________
Application heard on August 25, 2004, at Montréal, Quebec.
Before: The Honourable Justice Paul Bédard
Appearances:
Counsel for the Appellant:
Pierre Marquis
Counsel for the Respondent:
Alain Gareau
____________________________________________________________________
ORDER
Considering the Applicant's application to this Court to make a decision on the following question of law:
[translation]
If the provisions in subsection 163(2) of the Income Tax Act (R.S.C. 1985, c.1 (5th supp.)) are of the same nature as a criminal offence, is it an offence within the meaning of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms [more specifically, paragraphs 10(b), 11(c) and 11(d)].
The answer is no, and this, in accordance with the attached Reasons for Order.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 11th day of January 2005.
"Paul Bédard"
Bédard J.
Translation certified true
on this 11th day of April 2005.
Elizabeth Tan, Translator
Citation: 2005TCC17
Date: 20050111
Docket: 2002-830(IT)G
BETWEEN:
ROBERT BISAILLON,
Applicant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
REASONS FOR ORDER
Bédard J.
[1] Counsel for the Applicant is asking the Court, under section 58 of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure), to make a decision on the following questions:
(i) Is subsection 163(2) of the Income Tax Act (the "Act") a penal provision?
(ii) If so, were the legal guarantees specifically set out in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the "Charter") respected in this case? In other words, he is asking the Court to verify whether the Applicant had the right to counsel[1], the right against self-incrimination[2] and the right to be presumed innocent.[3]
[2] Relying on Wigglesworth[4], the Applicant tried hard to persuade me that subsection 163(2) of the Act includes genuine criminal consequences that give rise to the application of section 11 of the Charter.
[3] In my opinion, the Federal Court of Appeal's analysis in Martineau[5] clearly answers the Applicant's first question. It is worthy of note that the Supreme Court of Canada[6] very recently confirmed the decision rendered by the Federal Court of Appeal in this case.
[4] For these reasons, I find that the penalties set out in subsection 163(2) of the Act do not amount to a genuine criminal consequence within the meaning of section 11 of the Charter, and it is therefore of no use for me to make a determination on the other issues raised by the Applicant.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 11th day of January 2005.
"Paul Bédard"
Bédard J.
Translation certified true
on this 11th day of April 2005.
Elizabeth Tan, Translator
REFERENCE:
2005TCC17
COURT FILE NUMBER:
2002-830(IT)G
STYLE OF CAUSE:
Robert Bisaillon and H.M.Q.
PLACE OF HEARING:
Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING:
August 25, 2004
REASONS FOR ORDER BY:
The Honourable Justice Paul Bédard
DATE OF ORDER:
January 11, 2005
APPEARANCES:
Counsel for the Applicant:
Pierre Marquis
Counsel for the Respondent:
Alain Gareau
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For the Applicant:
Name:
Pierre Marquis
Firm:
Me Pierre Marquis
Montréal, Quebec
For the Respondent:
John H. Sims
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Canada
[1]
Subsection 10(b) of the Charter.
[2]
Subsection 11(c) of the Charter.
[3]
Subsection 11(d) of the Charter.
[4] R. v. Wigglesworth, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 541 (S.C.C.).
[5]
Martineau v. Canada (M.N.R.), 2003 FCA 176, at paragraphs 9 to11.
[6] 2004 SCC 81, December 16, 2004.