Canada v. Robertson

Canada v. Robertson Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2006-01-17 Neutral citation 2006 FCA 18 File numbers A-176-05, A-177-05, A-178-05 Decision Content Date: 20060117 Dockets: A-176-05 A-177-05 A-178-05 Citation: 2006 FCA 18 CORAM: ROTHSTEIN J.A. SHARLOW J.A. MALONE J.A. A-176-05 BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Appellant and TERREN ROBERTSON Respondent A-177-05 A-178-05 BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Appellant and VANTA ROBERTSON Respondent Heard at Vancouver, British Columbia, on January 17, 2006. Judgment delivered from the Bench at Vancouver, British Columbia, on January 17, 2006. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: SHARLOW J.A. Date: 20060117 Dockets: A-176-05 A-177-05 A-178-05 Citation: 2006 FCA 18 CORAM: ROTHSTEIN J.A. SHARLOW J.A. MALONE J.A. A-176-05 BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Appellant and TERREN ROBERTSON Respondent A-177-05 A-178-05 BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Appellant and VANTA ROBERTSON Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the Bench at Vancouver, British Columbia on January 17, 2006) SHARLOW J.A. [1] The Crown is appealing a decision of a judge of the Tax Court of Canada to adjourn a hearing that was convened to consider the respondents' application for an extension of time to file notices of objection. A decision to adjourn a proceeding is a discretionary one. This Court normally will not interfere with such a decision in the absence of an error of law. No such error is demonstrated in this case. [2] The Judge did not err in ordering the Minister to meet with the respondents to consider whether their assessments could be reconsidered. There is evidence in the record upon which the Judge could reasonably have concluded that there is at least one egregious error in the assessments to which the respondents are trying to object. It is obvious that the Judge was attempting to encourage the Minister to consider correcting that error, without the need of further litigation. That is a proper case management consideration, especially in informal proceedings. [3] The Minister has the statutory authority to correct an erroneous assessment by making a new assessment within the statutory time limit or, in certain income tax cases, even after the expiry of the statutory time limit, whether or not the respondents succeed in obtaining an extension of time to file notices of objection. [4] Counsel for the Minister suggests that there is a rule or policy that such corrections cannot be made while there is an outstanding court proceeding. We doubt that such a policy, if it exists, can be as rigid as counsel suggests, because if it is that rigid it would amount to an improper fetter on the Minister's discretion. [5] This appeal will be dismissed with costs, which are fixed at $500, inclusive of disbursements and GST. The formal judgment will fix a new time limit for the conclusion of discussions between the Minister and the respondents. (Sgd.) "Karen R. Sharlow" J.A. FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-176-05 A-177-05 A-178-05 STYLE OF CAUSE: Her Majesty The Queen v. Terren Robertson Et Al PLACE OF HEARING: Vancouver, British Columbia DATE OF HEARING: January 17, 2006 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT: ROTHSTEIN, SHARLOW, MALONE JJ.A DATED: January 17, 2006 APPEARANCES: Ms. Lisa M. Macdonell Ms. Nadine Taylor Pickering FOR THE APPELLANT Mr. Ernest Bauer FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: John H. Sims, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada Vancouver, BC FOR THE APPELLANT