Federal Court of Appeal Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

Date: 20030506

Docket: A-213-02

Neutral citation: 2003 FCA 208

CORAM:        LINDEN J.A.

ROTHSTEIN J.A.

MALONE J.A.

BETWEEN:

                                                                         SATYA PAL

Applicant

- and -

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Respondent

                                          Heard at Toronto, Ontario, Monday, May 5, 2003.

                                      Judgment delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario,

on Monday, May 5, 2003.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY:                                                 LINDEN J.A.


Date: 20030506

Docket: A-213-02

Neutral citation: 2003 FCA 208

CORAM:        LINDEN J.A.

ROTHSTEIN J.A.

MALONE J.A.

BETWEEN:

                                                                         SATYA PAL

Applicant

- and -

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Respondent

                                       REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario

on Monday, May 5, 2003)

LINDEN J.A.

[1]                 In this application, the Tax Court Judge held that the applicant failed to prove that he was a small business supplier, that is, that he supplied services valued at less than $30,000 annually as to be exempt from collecting G.S.T.


[2]                 In doing so, the Tax Court Judge stated that there was no cogent evidence that the $30,000 figure had not been exceeded. He said there was only "vague general statements" about this fact.                                                                                

[3]                 Actually, Exhibit A-2, an affidavit of a Mr. Sehmi, who was the lessee of the taxi cab, had been properly introduced into evidence (the same document as A-6 in A-212-02). That affidavit by the lessee stated that the annual rent he paid for the use of the taxi cab was between $14,000 and $15,000. This was cogent evidence, properly introduced, that was not "vague" or "general" but it was completely ignored by the Tax Court Judge.

[4]                 The estimate by the Departmental Assessor of the annual rental income from the taxi cab, based on the net worth method, ranged from approximately $49,000 to $74,000 annually.

[5]                 Based on the submissions of counsel for the applicant, we agree that these figures, based on the "blunt instrument" of the net worth calculation were questionable in the circumstances of this case.

[6]                 We therefore will allow the application for judicial review, set the Tax Court Judge's decision aside and remit the matter to the Tax Court Judge for redetermination. It will be open to the parties to adduce further evidence of the market value of taxi licence rentals and about any other matters that are considered advisable.


[7]                 Costs to the applicant for both matters will be $7,000 inclusive of disbursements and G.S.T.

"A. M. Linden"

                                                                                                                                                                  J.A.                             


                        FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

             Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record

DOCKET:                                              A-213-02

STYLE OF CAUSE:              SATYA PAL

Applicant

- and -

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Respondent

PLACE OF HEARING:                      TORONTO, ONTARIO

DATE OF HEARING:                        MONDAY, MAY 5th, 2003

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

OF THE COURT BY:                         LINDEN J.A

DATED:                                                TUESDAY MAY 6th , 2003

DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH AT TORONTO, ONTARIO ON MAY 5, 2003.

APPEARANCES BY:                          James McReynolds

                                                                For the Applicant                      

Elizabeth Chasson

Brent Cuddy

            For the Respondent

                                                                                                                                                                       

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:           Solmon Rothbart Goodman LLP

Barristers and Solicitors

Toronto, Ontario          

For the Applicant          

Morris Rosenberg

Deputy Attorney General of Canada     

For the Respondent

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.