|
Docket: 2004-4599(GST)G, 2004-4600(IT)G |
|
|
|
BETWEEN: |
|
MANJINDER GARCHA, |
|
Appellant, |
|
and |
|
|
|
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, |
|
Respondent. |
____________________________________________________________________
Motions heard on August 29, 2005, at Vancouver, British Columbia, by
|
The Honourable Justice C.H. McArthur |
|
|
Appearances: |
|
|
Counsel for the Appellant: |
Craig C. Sturrock |
|
Counsel for the Respondent: |
Michael Taylor |
____________________________________________________________________
ORDER
UPON motions by the Respondent for Orders that the Appellant provide particulars as demanded by the Respondent in Demands for Particulars filed and served on March 7, 2005; and costs;
AND UPON reading the affidavit of Julie Nguyen, filed;
AND UPON hearing counsel for the parties;
IT IS ORDERED THAT the motions are denied, with costs in the cause.
.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 22nd day of September, 2005.
|
"C.H. McArthur" |
McArthur J.
|
Citation: 2005TCC631 |
|
Date: 20050922 |
|
Docket: 2004-4599(GST)G, 2004-4600(IT)G |
|
|
|
BETWEEN: |
|
MANJINDER GARCHA, |
|
Appellant, |
|
and |
|
|
|
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, |
|
Respondent. |
REASONS FOR ORDER
McArthur J.
[1] These are motions for an Order to have the Appellant provide particulars demanded by the Respondent in Demands for Particulars filed and served on March 7, 2005. The Minister of National Revenue assessed the Appellant for the 2000 and 2001 taxation years, and including a goods and services tax determination for the period January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2001, using the net worth method.
[2] In his Notices of Appeal, counsel for the Appellant simply pleads that: "The Appellant's income tax returns for his 2000 and 2001 taxation years were correct as filed". Appellant's counsel describes the issues in the notice of appeal for the informal procedure as:
7. The issues in this appeal are:
(a) whether the Minister's arbitrary reassessments of tax are correct,
(b) whether the Appellant had any additional income other than that reported in his 2000 and 2001 taxation years and
(c) whether the Minister erred in imposing penalties under subsection 163(2) of the Act.
and in the notice of appeal for GST as:
9. The issues in this appeal are:
(a) whether the Minister erred in assuming that the Appellant had any income whatsoever from a proprietorship, that is, whether the Appellant had any income other than that reported by him for his 2000 and 2001 taxation years; and
(b) whether the Minister erred in imposing GST and penalties with respect to the alleged additional income from a proprietorship.
[3] The Respondent's Replies to the Notices of Appeal contain a number of assumptions of fact and schedules, all of which attempt to identify precisely how the assessments were arrived at, after an extensive audit. The Respondent's counsel is concerned because the Appellant has not identified what items and amounts the Appellant disagrees with.
[4] The Notices of Motion state:
2. The Appellant has not pleaded sufficient material facts to permit the Respondent to determine which elements of the reassessment are in issue for purposes of disclosure of documents and examinations for discovery;
3. The Appellant has not replied to a Demand for Particulars filed and served on the Appellant on March 7, 2005.
[5] I can understand the Respondent's frustration. He has comprehensively set out the assumptions upon which the assessment is based. It informs the Appellant of the case that is to be met. Pleadings are intended to serve the practical purpose of providing information about the party's case. I agree that the Appellant has not been forthcoming, yet I believe this motion is premature. The Replies are somewhat overwhelming. The Appellant may know his detailed position. At this stage, I believe that the Appellant is entitled to await discovery before advancing more particulars. Should the Appellant not be more forthcoming during the discovery process, it may be appropriate for the Respondent to re-submit the motions. The Respondent appears to have set out his position in an upfront and straight-forward manner. The Appellant is expected to do the same during, or shortly after discoveries, to permit the parties and subsequently, the trial judge to know what the specific issues boil down to and the facts the parties intend to rely on.
[6] The motions are denied, with costs in the cause.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 22nd day of September, 2005.
|
"C.H. McArthur" |
McArthur J.
|
CITATION: |
2005TCC631 |
|
COURT FILE NO.: |
2004-4599(GST)G and 2004-4600(IT)G |
|
STYLE OF CAUSE: |
Manjinder Garcha and Her Majesty the Queen |
|
PLACE OF HEARING: |
Vancouver, British Columbia |
|
DATE OF HEARING: |
August 29, 2005 |
|
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: |
The Honourable Justice C.H. McArthur |
|
DATE OF ORDER: |
September 22, 2005 |
|
APPEARANCES: |
|
Counsel for the Appellant: |
Craig C. Sturrock |
|
Counsel for the Respondent: |
Michael Taylor |
|
COUNSEL OF RECORD: |
|
For the Appellant: |
|
Name: |
Craig C. Sturrock |
|
Firm: |
Thorsteinssons |
|
For the Respondent: |
John H. Sims, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada Ottawa, Canada |