Synchrosat Ltd. v. Canada

Synchrosat Ltd. v. Canada
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2004-02-04
Neutral citation
2004 FCA 55
File numbers
A-310-03
Decision Content
Date: 20040204
Docket: A-310-03
Citation: 2004 FCA 55
CORAM: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
SEXTON J.A.
MALONE J.A.
BETWEEN:
SYNCHROSAT LIMITED
Applicant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
Heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on February 3, 2004.
Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on February 4, 2004.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: SEXTON J.A.
MALONE J.A.
Date: 20040204
Docket: A-310-03
Citation: 2004 FCA 55
CORAM: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
SEXTON J.A.
MALONE J.A.
BETWEEN:
SYNCHROSAT LIMITED
Applicant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
[1] The applicant seeks the judicial review of a decision of Lamarre J.T.C.C. which allowed, in part, its appeal against an assessment for the 2001 taxation year.
[2] At the hearing before the Tax Court, counsel for the respondent conceded that a sum of $914.00, representing contributions to the Canada Pension Plan paid in 2001 for salary earned in previous years, was related to scientific research and experimental development (SR & ED) and should be accepted as an SR & ED expenditure. However, the learned judge rejected the applicant's contention that the entire salary of $28,080.00 paid in 2001 to its sole employee, Dr. Sen who is also the president of the company, was an eligible SR & ED expenditure. It is this part of the decision which is now contested.
[3] In judicial review proceedings, the power of the reviewing Court with respect to findings of facts is limited. Such findings cannot be reviewed and overturned unless they have been made in a perverse or capricious manner. In the present instance, the Tax Court judge found, as a fact, that Dr. Sen worked on the entire project for which a SR & ED expenditure was claimed. She also ruled that Dr. Sen's salary was paid for his work for the entire project, but that only 25% of the activities of the project qualified as an eligible SR & ED expenditure. Therefore, she concluded that only 25% of the salary paid to Dr. Sen was attributable to an eligible SR & ED activity.
[4] There was sufficient evidence to support the findings and conclusions of the Tax Court judge. I do not doubt the commitment of Dr. Sen to the project undertaken by the applicant and the sincerity of his beliefs in bringing this application for judicial review. However, this Court is bound by the record and the evidence it contains as well as the legal principles applicable to judicial review proceedings.
[5] For these reasons, I would dismiss the application for judicial review without costs.
"Gilles Létourneau"
J.A.
"I agree
J. Edgar Sexton J.A."
"I agree
B. Malone J.A."
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-310-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: SYNCHROSAT LIMITED v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: February 3, 2004
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: SEXTON J.A.
MALONE J.A.
DATED: February 4, 2004
APPEARANCES:
Dr. Asim K. Sen
FOR THE APPLICANT
Mr. Ernest Wheeler
Ms. Jennifer Neill
FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario