Canada v. Laurin
Because residence is a fact‑driven inquiry and the Tax Court judge analyzed and stated the key facts and concluded the respondent was not resident in Canada for 1996–2000, this Court must defer to those factual findings; there is no basis to overturn them, so the Crown's appeal fails.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2008 FCA 58
- Parties
- Appellant: Her Majesty the Queen; Respondent: Jean Maurice Laurin
- Court
- Federal Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 13 February 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Tax Appeal From Tax Court of Canada / Appeal Heard and Judgment Delivered at Federal Court of Appeal
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed with costs.
- Legal Topics
- Residence for Tax Purposes, Tax Assessment, Standard of Review — Deference to Findings of Fact
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Her Majesty the Queen
Appellant
Jean Maurice Laurin
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Tax Appeal From Tax Court of Canada / Appeal Heard and Judgment Delivered at Federal Court of Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondent was resident in Canada for tax years 1996 to 2000
- 2 Whether the Tax Court judge erred in factual findings regarding residence and whether this Court should overturn those findings
Ratio Decidendi
Because residence is a fact‑driven inquiry and the Tax Court judge analyzed and stated the key facts and concluded the respondent was not resident in Canada for 1996–2000, this Court must defer to those factual findings; there is no basis to overturn them, so the Crown's appeal fails.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Canada v. Laurin Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2008-02-13 Neutral citation 2008 FCA 58 File numbers A-136-07 Decision Content Date: 20080213 Docket: A-136-07 Citation: 2008 FCA 58 CORAM: NOËL J.A. SHARLOW J.A. PELLETIER J.A. BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Appellant and JEAN MAURICE LAURIN Respondent Heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on February 13, 2008. Judgment delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, on February 13, 2008. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: SHARLOW J.A. Date: 20080213 Docket: A-136-07 Citation: 2008 FCA 58 CORAM: NOËL J.A. SHARLOW J.A. PELLETIER J.A. BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Appellant and JEAN MAURICE LAURIN Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, on February 13, 2008) SHARLOW J.A. [1] The Crown is appealing a judgment of Chief Justice Bowman of the Tax Court of Canada allowing the appeal of Jean Maurice Laurin from income tax assessments for the years 1996 to 2000 inclusive (2006 TCC 634). The only issue in the Tax Court was whether Mr. Laurin was resident in Canada during those years. Chief Justice Bowman determined that he was not. [2] The Crown submits that a person is resident in the country where he or she, in the settled routine of life, regularly, normally or customarily lives, as opposed to the place where the person unusually, casually or intermittently stays. We agree. [3] The legal test of residence has a substantial factual component. The Tax Court Judge was well aware of the legal test and of the central importance of the facts to the determination of residence. He analyzed the facts in detail before reaching his conclusion. Although he did not recite every item of evidence, he stated the key facts well and fully and it is not necessary to repeat them. [4] The Crown argues that the proven facts establish that Mr. Laurin was resident in Canada during the years under appeal, and that Chief Justice Bowman erred in finding otherwise. This amounts to an attack on Chief Justice Bowman’s assessment of the facts. In our view, the attack is unwarranted. Chief Justice Bowman’s conclusion is entitled to the deference normally afforded a trier of fact. We are able to detect no basis upon which this Court should intervene. [5] The appeal will be dismissed with costs. “K. Sharlow” J.A. FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-136-07 STYLE OF CAUSE: Her Majesty the Queen v. Jean Maurice Laurin PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, Ontario DATE OF HEARING: February 13, 2008 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: NOËL J.A. SHARLOW J.A. PELLETIER J.A. DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: SHARLOW J.A. APPEARANCES: Mr. Steven D. Leckie Mr. Ernest Wheeler FOR THE APPELLANT Ms. Frances M. Viele FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: John H. Sims, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada Ottawa, Ontario FOR THE APPELLANT Frances M. Viele Ottawa, Ontario FOR THE RESPONDENT