Date: 20000314
Docket: A-690-98
CORAM: DÉCARY J.A.
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
NOËL J.A.
IN RE a decision by Judge Archambault of the Tax Court of Canada on October 22, 1998 on appeal, pursuant to s. 103(1) of the Employment Insurance Act, S.C. 1996, c. 23 ("the E.I.A."), from a decision by the Minister of National Revenue pursuant to s. 91 E.I.A.
BETWEEN:
FLORENT DUMOULIN,
Plaintiff,
AND
MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Defendant.
Hearing held at Montréal on Tuesday, March 14, 2000
JUDGMENT delivered at Montréal on Tuesday, March 14, 2000
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: NOËL J.A.
Date: 20000314
Docket: A-690-98
CORAM: DÉCARY J.A.
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
NOËL J.A.
IN RE a decision by Judge Archambault of the Tax Court of Canada on October 22, 1998 on appeal, pursuant to s. 103(1) of the Employment Insurance Act, S.C. 1996, c. 23 ("the E.I.A."), from a decision by the Minister of National Revenue pursuant to s. 91 (E.I.A.).
BETWEEN:
FLORENT DUMOULIN,
Plaintiff,
AND
MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Defendant.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the bench at Montréal, Quebec
on Tuesday, March 14, 2000)
NOËL J.A.
[1] We were not persuaded that the Tax Court of Canada judge made an unreasonable error of fact in assessing the plaintiff's capacity to act. Consequently, it is not necessary to deal with the other points discussed by the trial judge in his judgment.
[2] As to the argument that the first presumption laid down in s. 5(2) of the Tax Court of Canada Rules of Procedure[1] is refutable and was rebutted in the case at bar, it cannot be accepted in any case in light of the trial judge's finding of fact that the plaintiff was capable of acting as of October 30, 1997.
[3] The application for judicial review will be dismissed. In the circumstances, there is no basis for awarding costs.
|
|
Marc Noël
J.A. |
Certified true translation
Martine Brunet, LL.B.
|
|
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA APPEAL DIVISION
Date: 20000314
Docket: A-690-98
IN RE a decision by Judge Archambault of the Tax Court of Canada on October 22, 1998 on appeal, pursuant to s. 103(1) of the Employment Insurance Act, S.C. 1996, c. 23 ("the E.I.A."), from a decision by the Minister of National Revenue pursuant to s. 91 E.I.A.
BETWEEN:
FLORENT DUMOULIN, Plaintiff,
AND
MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE, Defendant.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
|
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
APPEAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
FILE: A-690-98
IN RE a decision by Judge Archambault of the Tax Court of Canada on October 22, 1998 on appeal, pursuant to s. 103(1) of the Employment Insurance Act, S.C. 1996, c. 23 ("the E.I.A."), from a decision by the Minister of National Revenue pursuant to s. 91 E.I.A.
STYLE OF CAUSE: FLORENT DUMOULIN,
Plaintiff,
AND
MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Defendant.
PLACE OF HEARING: MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC
DATE OF HEARING: March 14, 2000
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: NOËL J.A.
DATED: March 14, 2000
APPEARANCES:
Guy Dupont and Marc-André Boutin for the plaintiff
Marie-Andrée Legault and Catherine Letellier for the defendant
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
GOODMAN, PHILLIPS & VINEBERG for the plaintiff
Montréal, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg for the defendant
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
[1] Where a decision referred to in subsection (1) is communicated by mail, the date of communication is the date it is mailed and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the date of mailing is the date specified on the decision [my emphasis].