Abdat v. Canada (Attorney General)

Abdat v. Canada (Attorney General) Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2024-03-19 Neutral citation 2024 FCA 52 File numbers A-219-22 Decision Content Date: 20240319 Docket: A-219-22 Citation: 2024 FCA 52 [ENGLISH TRANSLATION] CORAM: DE MONTIGNY C.J. BOIVIN J.A. ROUSSEL J.A. BETWEEN: DJILLALI-LYES ABDAT Appellant and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent Heard at Montréal, Quebec, on March 19, 2024. Judgment delivered from the bench at Montréal, Quebec, on March 19, 2024. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: DE MONTIGNY C.J. Date: 20240319 Docket: A-219-22 Citation: 2024 FCA 52 CORAM: DE MONTIGNY C.J. BOIVIN J.A. ROUSSEL J.A. BETWEEN: DJILLALI-LYES ABDAT Appellant and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the bench at Montréal, Quebec, on March 19, 2024.) DE MONTIGNY C.J. [1] This is an appeal from a decision of the Federal Court (Justice Grammond) dated September 22, 2022 (2022 FC 1316), in which the Federal Court dismissed the appellant’s application for judicial review of the denial, by the Director General – Legislative Policy of the Canada Revenue Agency (the Minister), of his request for remission of his tax debt. This request arose from assessments made by the Minister for the 1993 to 1998 taxation years and was based primarily on the sworn statements of two retired Canada Revenue Agency collections officers who were of the view that the assessments were incorrect. [2] It is now well established that this Court, when hearing an appeal from a Federal Court decision on an application for judicial review, must determine whether the application judge chose the correct standard of review and applied it properly: Agraira v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2013 SCC 36, [2013] 2 S.C.R. 559 at paras. 45 and 46; Northern Regional Health Authority v. Horrocks, 2021 SCC 42. In this case, the parties agree that the Federal Court did not err in choosing the standard of reasonableness. [3] After seriously considering the appellant’s written and oral representations, we are all of the opinion that the Federal Court properly applied the reasonableness standard and could rightfully dismiss the application for judicial review. When the Federal Court has already given an answer to the appellant’s arguments, the appellant must convince us that the Federal Court’s reasoning is flawed: Bank of Montreal v. Canada (Attorney General), 2021 FCA 189 at para. 4. In this case, the Federal Court carefully analyzed all of the appellant’s arguments, and the appellant did not meet his burden of identifying an error in the reasons for judgment giving rise to this Court’s intervention. Rather, the appellant is essentially asking us to reweigh the evidence and come to a different conclusion from that of the Federal Court. This is obviously not the role of this Court when hearing an appeal from a judicial review decision in which the reasonableness standard was applied. [4] With regard in particular to the statements made by the two collections officers, the Minister provided compelling reasons to doubt their truthfulness and accuracy and, on the whole, to give them little weight. These reasons are intelligible and supported by the evidence, as the Federal Court noted, and they made it possible to rebut the presumption of truthfulness of sworn statements. [5] As for the importance that the Minister supposedly attributed to the consent to judgment signed by the appellant, the appellant has also not satisfied us that it resulted in the Minister fettering his discretion. As noted by the Federal Court, the Minister could reasonably consider the public interest in the tax system and the need to preserve the integrity of the appeal process in exercising the broad discretion conferred on him as regards remission under subsection 23(2) of the Financial Administration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-11. [6] Lastly, the appellant raised several errors of fact that the Minister allegedly made in his reasons in support of the denial of his request for remission. These claims were all dealt with and dismissed by the trial judge, and we are also of the opinion that the deficiencies raised by the appellant are insufficient to make the decision unreasonable. [7] For all these reasons, the appeal will be dismissed, with costs. “Yves de Montigny” C.J. Certified true translation Melissa Paquette, Senior Jurilinguist FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-219-22 STYLE OF CAUSE: DJILLALI-LYES ABDAT v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec DATE OF HEARING: March 19, 2024 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: DE MONTIGNY C.J. BOIVIN J.A. ROUSSEL J.A. DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: DE MONTIGNY C.J. APPEARANCES: Patrick-Claude Caron For The Appellant Louis Sébastien For the Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Caron Avocats SENC Montréal, Quebec For the Appellant Shalene Curtis-Micallef Deputy Attorney General of Canada For the Respondent