Federal Court of Appeal Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

     Date: 20000411

     Docket: A-389-98

CORAM:      DÉCARY J.A.

         LÉTOURNEAU J.A.

         NOËL J.A.

BETWEEN:

     CLAUDE F. ARCHAMBAULT,

     Appellant,

     - and -

     HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,

     Respondent.



     Hearing held at Montréal, Quebec on Tuesday, April 11, 2000

     Judgment from the bench at Montréal, Quebec on Tuesday, April 11, 2000






REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT:      LÉTOURNEAU J.A.

     Date: 20000411

     Docket: A-389-98

CORAM:      DÉCARY J.A.

         LÉTOURNEAU J.A.

         NOËL J.A.

BETWEEN:

     CLAUDE F. ARCHAMBAULT,

     Appellant,

     - and -

     HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,

     Respondent.


     REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

     (Delivered from the bench at Montréal,

     Quebec on Tuesday, April 11, 2000)

LÉTOURNEAU J.

[1]      Despite her excellent argument, counsel for the appellant, Virginie Paquet, did not persuade us that Tremblay-Lamer J. made an error justifying our intervention.1 The Trial Division judge concluded that the appellant was not credible as to the time he said he spent operating his farm. In this regard, there was sufficient evidence in the record to allow her to reach such a conclusion and, in the circumstances, it is not for this Court on appeal to become involved in such a question of credibility.

[2]      She also was of the opinion that the appellant could not have derived his main source of income from farming alone, or from a combination of farming and his profession as a lawyer. The record disclosed that the appellant incurred farm losses for the taxation years at issue, namely 1977 to 1980, and did not operate a farm of a size that would allow him to reach the threshold of profitability. Further, the appellant filed no development plan to indicate to the Court that he was in a position to obtain his principal source of income from the farm, either exclusively or in combination with the practice of law.

[3]      As to the admissions which the judge characterized as formal, and on which she rejected an application to withdraw, we do not feel that she misunderstood the nature of the actions taken by counsel for the appellant at the time. The latter told the Court at the examination for discovery that he no longer intended to challenge the penalties for late filing of the appellant's tax returns. He accordingly acknowledged the validity of that part of the assessment.

[4]      The transcript is at first sight more ambiguous regarding the capital gain reported by the taxpayer in 1980, for which the Minister of National Revenue issued an assessment notice. However, when it is read with reference to the relevant provisions of the appeal filed by the appellant in the Trial Division and his own income statement for 1980, it becomes clear that the appellant informed the Court that he no longer wished to challenge what he had himself reported as a capital gain in his tax return for the 1980 taxation year.

[5]      We cannot conclude that Tremblay-Lamer J. did not exercise her discretion judicially in refusing to allow the withdrawal of these admissions.

[6]      For these reasons, the appeal will be dismissed with costs.




                                     Gilles Létourneau

                                         J.A.




Certified true translation




Martine Brunet, LL. B.

     FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

     APPEAL DIVISION

     Date: 20000411

     Docket: A-389-98

BETWEEN:

CLAUDE F. ARCHAMBAULT

     Appellant,

- and -

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,

     Respondent.






REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

OF THE COURT





     FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
     APPEAL DIVISION
     NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
     APPEAL FROM TRIAL DIVISION JUDGMENT
     ON MAY 12, 1998 IN FILE T-1643-83
FILE:                              A-389-98
STYLE OF CAUSE:                  CLAUDE F. ARCHAMBAULT
     Appellant,
                             - and -
                             HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
     Respondent.
PLACE OF HEARING:                  Montréal, QUEBEC
DATE OF HEARING:                  TUESDAY, APRIL 11, 2000
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
APPEARANCES:                      Virginie Paquet
                                 For the appellant
                             Paul Deschênes
                                 For the respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:              Claude F. Archambault et associés
                             50 Rue Le Royer Ouest
                             Montréal, Quebec
                             H2Y 1W7
                                 For the appellant
                             Morris Rosenberg
                             Deputy Attorney General of Canada
                             Ottawa, Ontario
                                 For the respondent

     Date: 20000411
     Docket: A-389-98
Montréal, Quebec, Tuesday, April 11, 2000
CORAM:      DÉCARY J.A.
         LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
         NOËL J.A.

BETWEEN:
     CLAUDE F. ARCHAMBAULT,
     Appellant,
     - and -
     HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
     Respondent.
     JUDGMENT
     The appeal is dismissed with costs.

                                     Robert Décary
                                         J.A.
Certified true translation



Martine Brunet, LL. B.
__________________

1      The trial decision was reported at 98 D.T.C. 6323.

 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.