Howard v. Attorney General of Canada

Howard v. Attorney General of Canada

The appeal is dismissed because the appellants’ radical proposition that s.7 allows individuals to opt out of generally applicable federal and provincial laws is unsupported; persons who reside in Canada are subject to laws applicable to residents including the Income Tax Act; courts may interpret undefined statutory terms and the appellants failed to file factual material sufficient to support their claim.

Citation
2019 ONCA 351
Parties
Applicant (appellant): Lance Howard; Applicant (appellant): Catherine Bradbury; Respondent (respondent): Attorney General of Canada
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 May 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Decision on Appeal From the Superior Court of Justice
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Charter S.7 Liberty, Residency for Tax Purposes, Statutory Interpretation, Procedural Fairness for Self Represented Litigants
Source Language
English
Civil Constitutional Law Tax Law Administrative Law Charter S.7 Liberty Residency for Tax Purposes Statutory Interpretation Procedural Fairness for Self Represented Litigants

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lance Howard

Applicant (appellant)

Catherine Bradbury

Applicant (appellant)

Attorney General of Canada

Respondent (respondent)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Decision on Appeal From the Superior Court of Justice

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.7 of the Charter confers a right to choose one’s legal relationship with the state and thereby opt out of statutes
  2. 2 Whether the absence of a statutory definition of “resident” in the Income Tax Act prevents its application to persons living in Canada
  3. 3 Whether the appellants were denied fair treatment as unrepresented litigants

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the appellants’ radical proposition that s.7 allows individuals to opt out of generally applicable federal and provincial laws is unsupported; persons who reside in Canada are subject to laws applicable to residents including the Income Tax Act; courts may interpret undefined statutory terms and the appellants failed to file factual material sufficient to support their claim.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs payable by the appellants to the respondent in the amount of $5,000, all-inclusive