Federal Court Decisions

     T-1738-97

     OTTAWA, ONTARIO, FRIDAY, THIS 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1997

     BEFORE: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE TEITELBAUM

BETWEEN:

     WALTER N. BUTZ

     Applicant

     - and -

     THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE OF CANADA

     Respondent

     ORDER AND REASONS FOR ORDER

     After reading the submissions made by the applicant and by counsel for the respondent, I am not prepared, at this stage of the proceeding, to strike or dismiss the applicant's application for judicial review solely on the basis that the applicant has no "interest" in the proceeding.

     In paragraphs 2 and 4 of the applicant's written submissions, he states:

2.      In paragraphs 2 and 6 the Respondent stresses the fact that the Applicant is not directly affected by the subject-matter which is subject to interpretation by the Honorable Court. The Applicant holds to be "directly affected" not by the judgment rendered but by the method of computing the tax owing as applied by the Minister.

If it is true that "allegations are not a reason for taxation" and "that an assessment has to have some measure of exactitude" (His Lordship Mr. Justice Estey) then the Minister should have reviewed the assessments 1997 and not declare the file closed before that time.

4.      An accountant's duty is to serve the principle of fair taxation, ensuring on one hand that the taxpayer pays his taxes within the frame work of the Income Tax Act and on the other hand that no tax is extracted from the taxpayer by taxation officials than the law allows. Violating the former does affect the accountant and allowing the latter affects the accountant also. An accountants integrity and professional standing is directly affected when disregarding either one.

     As is stated in paragraph 10 of the respondent's written submissions,

10.      Pursuant to this Court's inherent jurisdiction to control its own process, and/or pursuant to Rule 5 of the Federal Court Rules, the Court may strike out or dismiss an application for judicial review on a preliminary motion when it is "so clearly improper as to be bereft of any possibility of success".

can one say that the submission of the applicant is "so clearly improper as to be bereft of any possibility of success" on the issue of "interest" in the proceeding.

     I would agree that the applicant may have a difficult time convincing the Court of his "interest", but I am satisfied that this issue should be decided by the judge hearing the application for judicial review.

     The application is denied.

                                 "Max M. Teitelbaum"

                        

                                 J U D G E