Federal Court of Appeal Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

Date: 20010515

Docket: A-3-00

Neutral citation: 2001 FCA 152

CORAM:        STONE J.A.

ROTHSTEIN J.A.

SEXTON J.A.

BETWEEN:

CHRISTOPHER DEGEER

Appellant

                                                                             

                                                                         - and -                         

                                                                             

                                                                                                                                               

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

                                                                                                                                       Respondent

Heard at Toronto, Ontario, Monday, May 14, 2001

Judgment delivered at Toronto, Ontario,

on Tuesday, May 15, 2001

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:                                                 ROTHSTEIN J.A.

CONCURRED IN BY:                                                                                        STONE J.A.             

SEXTON J.A.


Date: 20010515

Docket: A-3-00

Neutral citation: 2001 FCA 152

CORAM:        STONE J.A.

ROTHSTEIN J.A.

SEXTON J.A.

BETWEEN:

                                                      CHRISTOPHER DEGEER

Appellant

                                                                             

                                                                         - and -                         

                                                                             

                                                                                                           

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

                                                                                                                                       Respondent

                                                    REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

ROTHSTEIN J.A.


[1]                Despite the able argument of counsel for the appellant, we are not persuaded that Bell J.T.C.C. erred in finding that there was no disposition of the appellant's farm on August 15, 1992 by the appellant to his parents and that no capital loss arose therefrom. The appellant relies on Browne v. Dunn, [1894] 6 R. 67 (H.L.) in respect of the evidence of Mrs. Watson, the appellant's mother, to argue that the Crown cannot treat her evidence as not credible without cross-examining her and giving her an opportunity to explain. However, the pleadings are replete with allegations by the Crown that there was no disposition. There was clear notice that the facts in respect of the purported disposition and therefore purported reconveyance were in issue. In any event, there is no indication that the Tax Court Judge disbelieved Mrs. Watson. Even believing her testimony that she offered to reconvey the farm to the appellant, the Tax Court Judge had concluded that she would do whatever the appellant asked her to do with respect to legal transactions involving the farm. This is all consistent with a scheme whereby the Appellant would appear to be disposing of the farm to crystalize a capital loss while, in the non-arms length circumstances of the relationship between him and his mother and stepfather, he retained the beneficial ownership of the farm.

[2]                The purported transfer of the farm from the appellant to his parents was made without any cancellation or adjustment of the promissory note for $1,275,000.00 that the appellant had given his parents when the farm was transferred to him originally. There is simply no credible explanation as to why, if he genuinely was disposing of the farm to his parents, no adjustment to the promissory note was made. In my view, this was a key piece of evidence which the Tax Court Judge was entitled to take into account in determining that the appellant's evidence to the effect that he intended to dispose of the farm in August, 1992 was not credible.


[3]                All the facts surrounding the purported transactions caused the learned Tax Court Judge to conclude that there was no disposition by the appellant and no capital loss. There is no basis upon which this Court should interfere with that finding.

[4]                With respect to the penalties assessed, the Tax Court Judge found that the appellant knowingly made false statements in his returns and found that he was subject to the penalties that were assessed. Again there is no basis for this Court interfering with that finding.

[5]                I would dismiss the appeal with costs.

     "Marshall Rothstein"

                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

                                                                                                                                                      J.A.                     

"I agree

A. J. Stone"

"I agree

"J. E. Sexton"


                                                                                    FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

                                     Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record

DOCKET:                                                       A-3-00

STYLE OF CAUSE:                                      CHRISTOPHER DEGEER

Appellant

                                                                         - and -                         

                                                                                                                                               

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

                                                                                                                                       Respondent

DATE OF HEARING:                          MONDAY, MAY 14, 2001

PLACE OF HEARING:                                    TORONTO, ONTARIO

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:                  ROTHSTEIN J.A.       

CONCURRED IN BY:                                     STONE J.A.

SEXTON J.A.

DATED:                                                            TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2001

APPEARANCES:                                           Mr. William Innes, and

Mr. Matthew Williams, and

Mr. Michael Colborne

For the Appellant

Mr. Gordon Bourgard

                                                                        For the Respondent

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:                       Thorsteinssons

Barristers & Solicitors

Box 611, BCE Place, 36th Floor

161 Bay Street

Toronto, Ontario

M5J 2S1

For the Appellant

Morris Rosenberg


Deputy Attorney General of Canada

For the Respondent

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

Date: 20010515

Docket: A-3-00

BETWEEN:

CHRISTOPHER DEGEER

Appellant

                                                                             

                                                                         - and -                         

                                                                             

                                                                                                                                               

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

                                                                                                                                       Respondent

                                                                      

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT                    

                                                                     


Date: 20010515

Docket: A-3-00

Toronto, Ontario, Tuesday, the 15th day of May, 2001

CORAM:        STONE J.A.

ROTHSTEIN J.A.

SEXTON J.A.

BETWEEN:

CHRISTOPHER DEGEER

Appellant

                                                                             

                                                                         - and -                         

                                                                             

                                                                                                                                               

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

                                                                                                                                       Respondent

                                                                                                                                                           

JUDGMENT

The appeal is dismissed with costs.

        "A. J. Stone"

                                                                                                                                                      J.A.                         


 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.