Perron v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue)

Perron v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue) Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2003-01-23 Neutral citation 2003 FCA 41 File numbers A-65-00 Decision Content Date: 20030123 Docket: A-65-00 Neutral Citation: 2003 FCA 41 CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A. LÉTOURNEAU J.A. NADON J.A. BETWEEN: CAROLINE PERRON Applicant and MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE Respondent Hearing held at Québec, Quebec, on January 22 and 23, 2003. Judgment delivered at Québec, Quebec, on January 23, 2003. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: NADON J.A. Date: 20030123 Docket: A-65-00 Neutral Citation: 2003 FCA 41 CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A. LÉTOURNEAU J.A. NADON J.A. BETWEEN: CAROLINE PERRON Applicant and MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the bench at Québec, Quebec on January 23, 2003.) NADON J.A. [1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of a Deputy Judge of the Tax Court of Canada dated December 20, 1999. [2] The issue before the judge was whether the applicant, a lawyer, had had insurable employment with the law firm of Rousseau & Girard from September 16, 1996, to March 28, 1997. The judge concluded that the applicant's employment was not insurable. [3] The judge found that Mr. Rousseau, Mr. Girard and the applicant had entered into an arrangement whose sole purpose was to enable the applicant to qualify for employment insurance benefits. [4] In our view, this case warrants our intervention. [5] The judge's decision consists of twelve paragraphs and barely takes up three pages. A brief summary of the facts is followed by the judge's conclusions. The decision does not contain any analysis of the facts that would justify the conclusions. [6] For the reasons stated by my colleague, Mr. Justice Létourneau, in Bouchard v. Attorney General of Quebec, 2003 FCA 27, a decision dated January 21, 2003, the reasons of the Deputy Judge by no means satisfy the requirement to give reasons for his decision, as set out in subsection 103(3) of the Employment Insurance Act. In light of the reasons stated by the judge, it is impossible for us to really understand why he arrived at the conclusion he did. [7] We are also of the view that the judge erred in failing to provide any explanation with respect to the credibility of Mr. Rousseau, Mr. Girard or the applicant. Because the judge ultimately found that these three used subterfuge to attempt to have the applicant qualify for employment insurance, it necessarily follows that the judge did not believe their testimony. Unfortunately, there is no comment, analysis or finding by the judge concerning the credibility of these three witnesses. [8] Under these circumstances, the judge ought to have explained why the testimony of the applicant and her employers was not trustworthy. He did not do so, and accordingly we are of the view that that constitues an error warranting our intervention. [9] In addition, after reviewing the record, we are of the view that there is evidence that a genuine contract of employment existed between the applicant and Mr. Rousseau and Mr. Girard: (i) the retainer in the case of the "Bourreau de Beaumont" [the Beaumont torturer] given to Mr. Rousseau, a high-profile criminal case of major importance; (ii) the approval by Legal Aid of an assistant in the execution of Mr. Rousseau's retainer; (iii) the expectation of substantial fees to be generated from the work done on the "Bourreau de Beaumont" file; (iv) the explanations by Mr. Girard that the low revenues of the law firm of Rousseau & Girard, as alleged by the respondent, referred only to the firm's cash receipts and did not include the billing to Legal Aid, which could only take place after the case was completed. [10] The judge did not consider or discuss these facts. [11] For these reasons, the application for judicial review will be allowed with costs, the decision of the Deputy Judge will be set aside and the matter will be returned for rehearing to the Chief Judge of the Tax Court of Canada or to a judge designated by him. "Marc Nadon" J.A. Certified true translation Mary Jo Egan, LLB FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA APPEAL DIVISION SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-65-00 STYLE OF CAUSE: CAROLINE PERRON v. MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE PLACE OF HEARING: QUÉBEC, QUEBEC DATE OF HEARING: January 22 and 23, 2003 CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A. LÉTOURNEAU J.A. NADON J.A. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: NADON J.A. DATED: January 23, 2003 APPEARANCES: André Girard FOR THE APPLICANT Johanne M. Boudreau FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Girard, Perron FOR THE APPLICANT Lévis, Quebec Department of Justice Canada FOR THE RESPONDENT Montréal, Quebec Date: 20030123 Docket: A-65-00 Québec, Quebec, January 23, 2003 CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A. LÉTOURNEAU J.A. NADON J.A. BETWEEN: CAROLINE PERRON Applicant and MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE Respondent JUDGMENT The application for judicial review is allowed, the decision of the Deputy Judge of the Tax Court of Canada is set aside and the matter is returned for rehearing to the Chief Judge of the Tax Court of Canada or to a judge designated by him. Costs in favour of the applicant. Alice Desjardins J.A. Certified true translation Mary Jo Egan, LLB