Canada v. Stanley J. Tessmer Law Corporation

Canada v. Stanley J. Tessmer Law Corporation

Tessmer had standing under the CEMA exception because it was involuntarily brought before the court by the self-assessing GST regime, but Tessmer failed to discharge the evidentiary burden to show that s.165 of the Excise Tax Act infringes s.10(b); absent evidence of actual adverse effect on clients' access to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2013 FCA 290
Parties
Appellant/respondent: Her Majesty the Queen; Appellant/respondent: Stanley J. Tessmer Law Corporation
Court
Federal Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal; Constitutional Challenge to Excise Tax Act (gst) and Tax Assessments / Federal Court of Appeal Decision on Consolidated Appeals
Outcome
Appeals dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Standing, Section 10(b) Charter, Goods and Services Tax, Excise Tax Act S.165, Access to Justice, Evidentiary Requirements for Charter Challenges
Source Language
english
Constitutional Law Tax Law Administrative Law Standing Section 10(b) Charter Goods and Services Tax Excise Tax Act S.165 Access to Justice +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Appellant/respondent

Stanley J. Tessmer Law Corporation

Appellant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal; Constitutional Challenge to Excise Tax Act (gst) and Tax Assessments / Federal Court of Appeal Decision on Consolidated Appeals

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Tessmer has standing to raise Charter rights of its clients under the CEMA exception
  2. 2 Whether s.165 of the Excise Tax Act infringes s.10(b) of the Charter
  3. 3 Whether a factual evidentiary foundation was required to establish infringement by economic effect

Ratio Decidendi

Tessmer had standing under the CEMA exception because it was involuntarily brought before the court by the self-assessing GST regime, but Tessmer failed to discharge the evidentiary burden to show that s.165 of the Excise Tax Act infringes s.10(b); absent evidence of actual adverse effect on clients' access to counsel the constitutional challenge fails.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal A-104-09 dismissed with costs
  • Appeals A-50-13, A-51-13, A-52-13, A-53-13 and A-54-13 dismissed with one set of costs