|
|
|
|
|
Docket: 2001-2429(IT)I |
|
BETWEEN: |
|
BRAD CAMERON |
|
Appellant, |
|
and |
|
|
|
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, |
|
Respondent. |
_______________________________________________________________
Appeal heard on September 22, 2003 at Victoria, British Columbia
|
Before: The Honourable Justice R.D. Bell |
|
|
|
|
|
Appearances: |
|
|
|
|
|
Counsel for the Appellant: |
George F. Jones. Q.C. |
|
|
|
|
Counsel for the Respondent: |
Johanna Russell |
_______________________________________________________________
AMENDED JUDGMENT
The appeal from the assessment made under the Income Tax Act, notice of which is dated October 13, 2000 and bears Assessment No. 17523, is allowed, and the assessment is referred back to the Minister of National Revenue for reconsideration and reassessment.
The Judgment of R.D. Bell, J., dated October 3, 2003 having inadvertently neglected to award costs, is hereby amended to award costs to the Appellant payable forthwith by the Respondent, for the reasons set forth in the Reasons for Judgment attached, in the amount of $2,500.
This Amended Judgment and Reasons for Judgment are issued in substitution for the Judgment dated October 3, 2003.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 23rd day of January, 2004.
|
"R.D. Bell" |
Bell, J.
|
Citation: 2004TCC80 |
|
Date: 20040123 |
|
Docket: 2001-2429(IT)I |
|
BETWEEN: |
|
BRAD CAMERON |
|
Appellant, |
|
and |
|
|
|
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, |
|
Respondent. |
REASONS FOR AWARD OF COSTS
Bell, J.
[1] Due to inadvertence, my Judgment dated October 3, 2003, neglected to award costs to the Appellant in this case in which he was wholly successful. One of the issues was whether a "T4 Statement of Remuneration Paid" showing that the amount of $25,000 was paid by Water Front Café Ltd. to one Dean Ross for the 1998 taxation year and also showing the following amounts as deductions:
Income tax deducted $5,860.00
Employee's CPP contributions $1,280.00
Employee's EI premiums $ 910.00
was valid, reflecting the accuracy of such income and deductions, thereby creating an amount for which the Appellant was said to be liable.
[2] It was patently clear from the evidence that, as I said,
... I find the T4 invalid and irrelevant and that will surprise no one.
[3] Appellant's counsel, in his submissions, said:
Now, there are two issues in this case, of course, as my learned friend, who was very fair on everything up to right now, and the only thing I'm upset about is, the first thing is the T4, the T4 that was written, obviously -- it is certainly denied that it was written by Brad Cameron. He'd never seen it before, he had nothing to do with it. Jim Mitchell wrote to Wendy Faddis in the Appeal Section two years ago, asking for a copy of that T4. Because if it had been signed by Brad Cameron, well, we'd be dead. I mean, obviously we'd be dead. Then he would have known about it.
I mean, it doesn't make sense that in a business that was losing money, obviously as we know now, from the outset, that a man who had already signed a so-called partnership agreement agreeing that they wouldn't take any money, and hardly ever worked there, according to the Crown's own witnesses, would take a salary of $25,000. How ever would Brad Cameron have been able to know about this, and how would he have been able to control this? For instance, when a T4 is normally filed there's a direction to pay and that sort of thing. The first time we saw that T4 was this morning in court, despite letters to CCRA asking for it.
JUSTICE BELL: They wouldn't produce it?
MR. JONES: They wouldn't produce it, until today. That's the only complaint I - and I'm very loath ever to criticize the Department.
JUSTICE BELL: That was a T4 from the very company of which the man who was a director is accused of not having complied with the regulations. Was there any stated reason for that?
MR. JONES: No. We asked for it but never got it. But we got it this morning. And obviously from it -- because in cross-examination, my learned friend cross-examined at some length Brad Cameron on it to see whose signature he thought was on it, and the only answer she got out of him was that it looked like Patty Ross's. Which only makes sense.
[4] In my opinion, the Respondent should have dealt with this document appropriately, showing same to the Appellant and/or his counsel and discussing same with respect to its authenticity. By failing so to do, the Respondent occasioned more preparation by Appellant's counsel and caused a worthless document to be presented to him only on the morning of the hearing. My award of costs, in excess of the normal costs, takes that failure into account.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 23rd day of January, 2004.
|
"R.D. Bell" |
Bell, J.
|
CITATION: |
2004TCC80 |
|
COURT FILE NO.: |
2001-2429(IT)I |
|
STYLE OF CAUSE: |
Brad Cameron v. The Queen |
|
PLACE OF HEARING: |
Victoria, British Columbia |
|
DATE OF HEARING: |
September 22, 2003 |
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: |
The Honourable Justice R.D. Bell |
|
DATE OF REASONS FOR JUDGMENT: |
January 23, 2004 |
|
APPEARANCES: |
|
For the Appellant: |
George F. Jones, Q.C. |
|
Counsel for the Respondent: |
Johanna Russell |
|
COUNSEL OF RECORD: |
|
For the Appellant: |
|
Name: |
George F. Jones, Q.C. |
|
Firm: |
Jones Emery Hargreaves Swan Victoria, British Columbia |
|
For the Respondent: |
Morris Rosenberg Deputy Attorney General of Canada Ottawa, Canada |