Paquet v. Canada

Paquet v. Canada Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2004-11-18 Neutral citation 2004 FCA 391 File numbers A-574-03 Decision Content Date: 20041118 Docket: A-574-03 Citation: 2004 FCA 391 CORAM: LÉTOURNEAU J.A. NOËL J.A. NADON J.A. BETWEEN: GAÉTAN PAQUET Appellant and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent Hearing held at Québec, Quebec, on November 18, 2004. Judgment delivered from the bench at Québec, Quebec, on November 18, 2004. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: NOËL J.A. Date: 20041118 Docket: A-574-03 Citation: 2004 FCA 391 CORAM: LÉTOURNEAU J.A. NOËL J.A. NADON J.A. BETWEEN: GAÉTAN PAQUET Appellant and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (Delivered from the bench at Québec, Quebec, on November 18, 2004) NOËL J.A. [1] We have come to the view that this appeal must be dismissed. With regard to the argument based on the limitation period, the wording of subsection 298(1) could not be any clearer. [2] Under that provision, the limitation period begins on the day on which the person was required to file a return or the day on which the return was filed whichever is the later. The interpretation proposed by the appellant would result in the limitation period running from the day on which he was required to file his return, regardless of the fact that he had yet to file it. [3] This interpretation requires that the clear and unequivocal wording of the provision be disregarded, something that the Court refused to do in Déziel v. Canada, [2004] F.C.J. No. 528, a decision which, incidentally, is binding on us. [4] It is worth adding that subsection 298(1) is part of a self-assessment regime whereby persons acquiring supplies for their own consumption must file a return. The appellant, in complaining that the limitation period has yet to run in his case, is only alleging his own turpitude. Moreover, the interpretation which he proposes would encourage people not to file, a result which was obviously not intended. [5] With regard to the second issue we are of the view, after carefully reviewing the passages of the transcript alluded to by the parties, that Tardif J. was entitled to find that the fair market value of the immovables was not at issue before him. It follows that that issue cannot be raised on appeal. [6] For these reasons, the appeal will be dismissed with costs. "Marc Noël" J.A. "I concur. Gilles Létourneau, J.A." "I concur. Marc Nadon, J.A." FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-574-03 STYLE OF CAUSE: GAÉTAN PAQUET v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN PLACE OF HEARING: QUÉBEC, QUEBEC DATE OF HEARING: NOVEMBER 18, 2004 CORAM: LÉTOURNEAU J.A. NOËL J.A. NADON J.A. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT NOËL J.A. OF THE COURT: DATE OF REASONS: NOVEMBER 18, 2004 APPEARANCES: Stéphane Harvey FOR THE APPELLANT Louis Cliche FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Lavery, De Billy FOR THE APPELLANT Québec, Quebec Veillette et associés FOR THE RESPONDENT Sainte-Foy, Quebec