Elke v. Canada
Because the Supreme Court decision in Stewart v. Canada rendered the prior reasoning incorrect, Bowman A.C.J.'s decision was set aside and the matter remitted to him to determine the quantum of expense deductions after receipt of any further evidence the parties may present; applicants awarded costs in this Court.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2003 FCA 73
- Parties
- Applicant: Jo-Ann Elke; Applicant: Steven Hiscock; Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen
- Court
- Federal Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 11 February 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review / Federal Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal/remittal
- Outcome
- Application for judicial review allowed; decision of Bowman A.C.J. set aside; matter remitted to Bowman A.C.J. to determine quantum of expense deductions; costs awarded to applicants in this Court.
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review, Remittal, Costs, Deductions of Expenses
- 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
Jo-Ann Elke
Applicant
Steven Hiscock
Applicant
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Federal Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal/remittal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the decision of Bowman A.C.J. should be set aside in light of Stewart v. Canada, 2002 SCC 46
- 2 What is the correct quantum of expenses to be deducted
- 3 Whether the matter should be remitted to Bowman A.C.J. for determination of the quantum and receipt of additional evidence
Ratio Decidendi
Because the Supreme Court decision in Stewart v. Canada rendered the prior reasoning incorrect, Bowman A.C.J.'s decision was set aside and the matter remitted to him to determine the quantum of expense deductions after receipt of any further evidence the parties may present; applicants awarded costs in this Court.
Court Disposition
Application for judicial review allowed; decision of Bowman A.C.J. set aside; matter remitted to Bowman A.C.J. to determine quantum of expense deductions; costs awarded to applicants in this Court.
Orders
- The application for judicial review is allowed.
- The decision of Bowman A.C.J. is set aside.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Elke v. Canada Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2003-02-11 Neutral citation 2003 FCA 73 File numbers A-262-01 Decision Content Date: 20030211 Docket: A-262-01 Neutral citation: 2003 FCA 73 CORAM: RICHARD C.J. DESJARDINS J.A. ROTHSTEIN J.A. BETWEEN: JO-ANN ELKE and STEVEN HISCOCK Applicants and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent Heard at Ottawa, Ontario, February 11, 2003 Judgment delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, February 11, 2003 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: DESJARDINS J.A. Date: 20030211 Docket: A-262-01 Neutral citation: 2003 FCA 73 CORAM: RICHARD C.J. DESJARDINS J.A. ROTHSTEIN J.A. BETWEEN: JO-ANN ELKE and STEVEN HISCOCK Applicants and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario on February 11, 2003) DESJARDINS J.A. [1] Since Bowman A.C.J. rendered his judgment against the applicants on March 15, 2001, the Supreme Court of Canada has issued its decision in the case of Stewart v. Canada, 2002 SCC 46, [2002] S.C.J. No. 46 (QL). [2] Both parties agree that the decision of Bowman A.C.J. should be set aside on that basis. [3] What remains to be decided is the issue of quantum of expenses to be deducted. [4] Considering that Bowman A.C.J. made no finding on this issue, the matter will be returned to him for a determination of this issue. Additional evidence may be adduced by the parties in this regard. The applicants will be entitled to their costs in this Court. [5] The application for judicial review will therefore be allowed, the decision of Bowman A.C.J. will be set aside and the matter will be remitted to Bowman A.C.J. to determine, after receipt of such further evidence as the parties may elect to present, the quantum of deductions of expenses. The whole with costs to the applicants in this Court. "Alice Desjardins" J.A. FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-262-01 STYLE OF CAUSE: Jo-Ann Elke and Steven Hiscock v. Her Majesty the Queen PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, Ontario DATE OF HEARING: February 11, 2003 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: (Richard C.J., Desjardins & Rothstein JJ.A.) RENDERED FROM THE BENCH BY: Desjardins J.A. APPEARANCES: Mr. Emilio Binavince and Ms. Helen Lanctôt FOR THE APPLICANTS Mr. Roger Leclaire FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Binavince Smith Ottawa, Ontario FOR THE APPLICANTS Mr. Morris Rosenberg Deputy Attorney General of Canada FOR THE RESPONDENT