Date: 20010130
Docket: 2000-3244-IT-I
BETWEEN:
LORRAINE STRATKOTTER,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
Reasons for Judgment
(delivered orally from the Bench at Calgary, Alberta on November 21, 2000)
Bell, J.T.C.C.
[1] Well, I understand your last comments. We don't live in a world where we can have perfection in any system because we are human beings and it's my understanding from what I have read and what I have heard that an immense amount of effort went into the process of determining how the Income Tax Act should be amended. Ms. Mah has referred to a fair amount of that from the '98 budget and whether it's satisfactory to us all or not, four options were selected that are in there and those options would, of course, include and certainly wouldn't exclude, anything that the parties themselves wanted to agree upon, whether they wanted to have it by written agreement or by an agreement supported by a Court order and that type of thing.
[2] I have absolutely no doubt about what the law of this land is in relation to your problem because the Supreme Court has expressed it quite clearly and I simply adopt Ms. Mah's argument in that regard, because it was substantially a re-statement of what the Supreme Court of Canada has said. So I have no ability to try to change that law, because it's quite clear and succinct and comprehensively expressed. That, to me, concludes your argument with respect to discrimination under section 15(1) of the Constitution.
[3] So far as your latter comments are concerned, I think I can tell you that I understand what you are saying. There is no perfection in our system either so far as the ability to pursue those who should pay is concerned. We simply don't have that perfection. There is a constant attempt to make it better but those facts which you say preclude you from having the option to change the circumstance under which you find yourself are not something that I can adjudicate upon.
[4] I have no experience, I've heard some tales about what happens when these matters are re-negotiated and you can tell right away what the important negotiating factors to both sides would be. If the payor, male or female, does not want to -- sorry, wants a deduction and is not going to get it, he or she will want to pay less and the opposite happens on the other side so we cannot remove the human emotion, human factor, from those types of negotiations. However, Ms. Stratkotter, you are simply not in a position to succeed in this appeal because of the decision in the Thibaudeau v. H.M.Q. 95 DTC 5273 case and because these options have not been pursued and no other option has been followed.
[5] It's absolutely right for you to use your opportunity to come to Court to express yourself and I thank you, Ms. Mah, for the clarity in your presentation.
[6] So this case will be dismissed.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 30th day of January 2001.
"R.D. Bell"
J.T.C.C.