Drag v. Canada (National Revenue)

Drag v. Canada (National Revenue)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2014-12-10
Neutral citation
2014 FCA 291
File numbers
A-244-14
Decision Content
Date: 20141210
Docket: A-244-14
Citation: 2014 FCA 291
CORAM:
DAWSON J.A.
WEBB J.A.
NEAR J.A.
BETWEEN:
MIROSLAW DRAG
Appellant
and
CANADA REVENUE AGENCY
Respondent
Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on December 9, 2014.
Judgment delivered at Toronto, Ontario, on December 10, 2014.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:
DAWSON J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY:
WEBB J.A.
NEAR J.A.
Date: 20141210
Docket: A-244-14
Citation: 2014 FCA 291
CORAM:
DAWSON J.A.
WEBB J.A.
NEAR J.A.
BETWEEN:
MIROSLAW DRAG
Appellant
and
CANADA REVENUE AGENCY
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
DAWSON J.A.
[1] The Canada Revenue Agency concluded that the appellant provided taxable services in Canada and that he failed to collect and remit Goods and Services Tax (GST). The appellant was therefore assessed; such assessment included penalties and interest charges. The appellant applied for taxpayer relief under section 281.1 of the Excise Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-15 (Act). As a result of this application, a decision was made to cancel the interest charges incurred up to the date of GST registration because the appellant never collected GST and so never had GST funds for his own use. The penalties were not waived or cancelled.
[2] A judge of the Federal Court dismissed an application for judicial review of that decision (2014 FC 367). This is an appeal from that decision.
[3] In my view, this appeal cannot succeed for the following reasons.
[4] First, the Federal Court Judge selected the correct standard of review and made no error in his application of the reasonableness standard to the decision not to waive or cancel the penalties assessed against the appellant.
[5] Second, the Judge correctly concluded that section 281.1 of the Act does not permit the waiver or cancellation of the underlying tax. Indeed, the appellant did not seek this remedy in his Request for Taxpayer Relief.
[6] Therefore, I would dismiss the appeal. In the circumstances, I would not award costs against the appellant.
"Eleanor R. Dawson"
J.A.
“I agree
Wyman W. Webb J.A.”
“I agree
D.G. Near J.A.”
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
Docket:
A-244-14
APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANSON OF THE FEDERAL COURT, DATED APRIL 16, 2014, DOCKET NO. T-1571-13.
STYLE OF CAUSE:
MIROSLAW DRAG v. CANADA REVENUE AGENCY
PLACE OF HEARING:
Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING:
December 9, 2014
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:
DAWSON J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY:
WEBB J.A.
NEAR J.A.
DATED:
December 10, 2014
APPEARANCES:
Self-Represented
For The Appellant
Laurent Bartleman
For The Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
N/A
For The Appellant
William F. Pentney
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
For The Respondent