Amethyst Greenhouses Ltd. v. Canada

Amethyst Greenhouses Ltd. v. Canada Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2007-02-21 Neutral citation 2007 FCA 78 File numbers A-518-06 Decision Content Date: 20070221 Docket: A-518-06 Citation: 2007 FCA 78 Present: LÉTOURNEAU J.A. BETWEEN: AMETHYST GREENHOUSES LTD. Appellant and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent Dealt with in writing without appearance of parties. Order delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on February 21, 2007. REASONS FOR ORDER BY: LÉTOURNEAU J.A. Date: 20070221 Docket: A-518-06 Citation: 2007 FCA 78 Present: LÉTOURNEAU J.A. BETWEEN: AMETHYST GREENHOUSES LTD. Appellant and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent REASONS FOR ORDER LÉTOURNEAU J.A. [1] The appellant seeks by motion an order, the conclusions of which are as follows: A) TO NULLIFY JEOPARDY ORDERS AND REVERSE JUDGMENT ORDERS OBTAINED BY FRAUD! (Seized funds to be returned immediately.) B) To provide equal funding including overhead to the appellant in order to obtain FIAT JUSTITIA RUAT COELUM. C) To allow appellant to conduct appeal until funds available to hire a team of honest professionals including a lawyer. (Rule 120) D) To allow appeal documents as requested on November 28, 2006 fax. E) To declare that Amethyst Farms Ltd, Amethyst Greenhouses Ltd, Elizabeth Houweling, and Paul Houweling cannot be dealt with separately. See 85/411 and 86/411. F) To set up an INQUIRY into the fraud and corruption which has allowed this mess to happen. [2] The motion is made by Mr. Paul Houweling on behalf of the appellant. He represented the appellant before the Tax Court of Canada where the appellant’s motion for an order setting aside the judgment of Little J. dated August 22, 2006 was only partly successful. [3] The motion as drafted and developed by the appellant makes little sense. The incoherent material filed in support of the motion does not fare any better. Not unlike the respondent, I nonetheless can see two conclusions of the motion that I need to address. [4] The first one relates to item D). It is a demand to introduce new evidence, that is to say evidence that was not before the Tax Court of Canada when it rendered its decision. [5] In a related case involving himself, Mr. Houweling filed a motion to introduce new evidence. The motion was denied by Sharlow J.A.: see Houweling v. Her Majesty the Queen, A-493-05. At paragraph 2 of her Order she wrote: The appeal is from a judgment of the Tax Court of Canada which dismissed the appellant’s appeal on the basis that the appellant had not met the onus of establishing that his income tax assessment was wrong in law or in fact. The proposed new evidence consists of a large volume of pages, some of which are parts of larger documents, most of which are not identified or explained. It appears that the appellant has numerous complaints relating to the transaction that resulted in the tax assessment and other matters, but I am unable to discern from the appellant’s material any connection between those events and the correctness of his income tax assessment. I am compelled to conclude that the appellant has failed to demonstrate that any of the proposed new evidence is relevant or conclusive of an issue raised in this appeal. [6] The same remarks can be made with respect to the material that the appellant seeks to introduce. Relevancy to the issues in dispute is not evident. The criteria regarding the admissibility of new evidence are not discussed and certainly do not appear to be met. Nothing would be gained in terms of justice, fairness and efficiency by admitting this evidence. [7] Mr. Houweling seeks this Court’s authorization to represent the appellant in the appeal proceedings: see item C) of the conclusions of the appellant’s motion. Rule 120 of the Federal Courts Rules states that a corporation must be represented by a solicitor unless the Court in special circumstances grants leave to it to be represented by an officer, partner or member, as the case may be (emphasis added). It is not readily and immediately ascertainable from the disorganized material before me if Mr. Houweling meets the requirements of Rule 120 regarding the status of the representative. [8] Furthermore, I have not been informed of any special circumstance that would justify derogating from the wisdom of Rule 120. [9] Finally, Mr. Houweling represented himself in file A-493-05, previously cited, before this Court and the Tax Court of Canada. The experience was far from being conclusive and productive. At paragraph 5 of the reasons for judgment, Malone J.A. wrote: During the course of the trial, Bowman C.J. extended to Mr. Houweling every opportunity to abandon his irrelevant assertions regarding a purported fraud (over which the Tax Court of Canada had no jurisdiction) and to focus on the section 85 election and assessment issues. This he also failed to do. In the end, Mr. Houweling admitted during his examination-in-chief that the assessments under appeal were correct. [10] Sheridan J. of the Tax Court of Canada experienced the same difficulty with the performance of Mr. Houweling representing the appellant in the proceedings before the Tax Court. She complained in the following words at paragraph 10 of her reasons for judgment: The Notice of Appeal is drafted in the same rambling and incoherent style as the “affidavit” filed on behalf of the Appellant in this motion, making it difficult, if not impossible, to discern on what basis the Appellant challenges the Minister’s assessments. At the hearing of this motion, I invited Mr. Houweling to enlarge upon the material in the Appellant’s Notice of Appeal. He admitted that the Appellant did not file any income tax returns during the taxation years in question. The gist of his appeal seems to be that the difficulties with his brother (and perhaps others) made it impossible for the Appellant to furnish the information required in the return and his own personal beliefs prevented him from signing what, if incomplete, he believed would be a “false” document. Further, the Appellant has not kept adequate books and records. He also blamed CRA officials for failing to help him complete his returns, expressing his belief that they were well aware of what was needed, of the difficulties he was having with his brother, of the allegations of fraud and conspiracy and of the negative impact this had on his ability to report the Appellant’s income. None of this provides any reasonable basis for an appeal. The Appellant has the onus of proving wrong the Minister’s assumptions. Without any supporting documentation and given Mr. Houweling’s admitted inability to provide the financial details of the Appellant’s business operations, I am unable to conclude that the Notice of Appeal discloses an arguable case in respect of the 1999, 2000 and 2001 appeals. [11] For these reasons, the appellant’s motion will be dismissed with costs. “Gilles Létourneau” J.A. FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-518-06 STYLE OF CAUSE: AMETHYST GREENHOUSES LTD. v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN MOTION DEALT WITH IN WRITING WITHOUT APPEARANCE OF PARTIES REASONS FOR ORDER BY: LÉTOURNEAU J.A. DATED: February 21, 2007 WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY: Paul Houweling FOR THE APPELLANT Ron D.F. Wilhelm David Everett FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: RPO Cloversquare Surrey, B.C. FOR THE APPELLANT John H. Sims, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada FOR THE RESPONDENT