Sturtevant v. Canada

Sturtevant v. Canada
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2006-09-14
Neutral citation
2006 FCA 304
File numbers
A-407-05
Decision Content
Date: 20060914
Docket: A-407-05
Citation: 2006 FCA 304
CORAM: DÉCARY J.A.
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
NADON J.A.
BETWEEN:
LLOYD STURTEVANT
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
Hearing held at Montréal, Quebec, on September 14, 2006.
Judgment delivered from the bench at Montréal, Quebec, on September 14, 2006.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
Date: 20060914
Docket: A-407-05
Citation: 2006 FCA 304
CORAM: DÉCARY J.A.
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
NADON J.A.
BETWEEN:
LLOYD STURTEVANT
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the bench at Montréal, Quebec, on September 14, 2006)
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
[1] Despite Mr. Jodoin’s efforts, we have not been persuaded that Mr. Justice Angers of the Tax Court of Canada made an error in determining the appeal that was before him, an error that would justify our intervention. Both the material and oral evidence allowed him to make the findings of fact that he did in support of his decision.
[2] Counsel for the appellant focused on the following passage at paragraph 28 of the decision to conclude that the judge had applied a more onerous burden of proof than the balance of probabilities that normally prevails:
What is certain is that all the equipment was owned by the Company on May 1, 1990. No evidence brought before me enables me to find with certainty that the Company again transferred equipment to the Appellant between May 1, 1990 and 1995 year end.
(Emphasis added)
[3] It is regrettable that the words chosen by the judge could, when viewed in isolation, lead one to believe that he erred regarding the burden of proof required of the appellant. However, with respect, when this sentence is placed in its context and the entire decision is read, it becomes clear that the judge assessed the evidence submitted by both the appellant and the respondent in accordance with the standard of reasonableness and probability. Moreover, he uses the term “balance of probabilities” at paragraph 42 of his decision to describe the burden that the appellant had to meet:
There is a discrepancy resulting from the net worth method calculation for the 1999 taxation year. The Minister shall make adjustments based on these reasons. The Appellant has not convinced me, on a balance of probabilities, that this discrepancy is anything other than unreported income.
[4] For these reasons, the appeal will be dismissed with costs.
Gilles Létourneau
J.A.
Certified true translation
Mary Jo Egan, LLB
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-407-05
AppeAl OF A JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE François Angers OF THE TAX COURT OF Canada DATED AUGUST 16, 2005
STYLE OF CAUSE: LLOYD STURTEVANT v.
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: September 4, 2006
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: DÉCARY J.A.
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
NADON J.A.
DELIVERED AT THE HEARING BY: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
APPEARANCES:
Robert Jodoin
FOR THE APPELLANT
Dany Leduc
FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Jodoin Huppé
Granby, Quebec
FOR THE APPELLANT
John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Montréal, Quebec
FOR THE RESPONDENT