Girard v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue)

Girard v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue) Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2003-01-23 Neutral citation 2003 FCA 36 File numbers A-141-01 Decision Content Date: 20030123 Docket: A-141-01 Neutral citation: 2003 FCA 36 CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A. LÉTOURNEAU J.A. NADON J.A. BETWEEN: JOSÉE GIRARD Plaintiff and THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE Defendant Hearing held at Québec, Quebec on January 23, 2003. Judgment from the bench at Québec, Quebec on January 23, 2003. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: LÉTOURNEAU J.A. Date: 20030123 Docket: A-141-01 Neutral citation: 2003 FCA 36 CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A. LÉTOURNEAU J.A. NADON J.A. BETWEEN: JOSÉE GIRARD Plaintiff and THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE Defendant REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the bench at Québec, Quebec on January 23, 2003.) LÉTOURNEAU J.A. [1] The gist of the Tax Court of Canada deputy judge's decision is contained in the following single paragraph: [TRANSLATION] It seems clear from the evidence adduced and the documents filed by the parties that the Minister had regard to all the circumstances, ruled out irrelevant factors, acted in accordance with the recognized principles of law and based his decision on sufficient facts; in view of the many contradictions found in the evidence and considering that the rest of the evidence is sufficient to justify the Minister's decision that the parties would not have entered into a similar contract if they had been dealing with each other at arm's length, the appeals are dismissed and the Minister's decisions are confirmed. [2] In view of the judge's failure to provide sufficient and proper reasons for his decision as required in employment insurability matters by s. 103(3) of the Employment Insurance Act, S.C. 1996, c. 23, and for the reasons given on January 21, 2003 in Hervey Bouchard v. AGC, A-425-01, and Les Entreprises Forestières Hervey Bouchard Inc. v. AGC, A-426-01, we feel that the application for judicial review should be allowed. [3] It is not the function of the Court of Appeal sitting in judicial review, and not hearing or seeing the witnesses, to re-read all the transcripts to try to find and identify what, for example, might have been contradictions in the evidence. It is not sufficient for a deputy judge to say in justification [TRANSLATION] "in view of the many contradictions contained in the evidence" and [TRANSLATION] "as the remainder of the evidence is sufficient to justify the Minister's decisions". Identifying and discussing the oral and documentary evidence supporting the judge's conclusions is precisely what he or she is there to do. [4] The stereotyped kind of formula used by the deputy judge impedes the valid exercise of a review proceeding and prejudices the parties, to say nothing of the subsequent costs which it generates for a re-hearing, and possibly a second review application. [5] The application for judicial review will be allowed with costs, the decision by the deputy judge quashed and the matter referred back to the Tax Court of Canada Chief Judge or to a judge appointed by him for re-hearing. Gilles Létourneau J.A. Certified true translation Suzanne M. Gauthier, C. Tr., LL.L. FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA APPEAL DIVISION SOLICITORS OF RECORD FILE: A-141-01 STYLE OF CAUSE: JOSÉE GIRARD v. THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE PLACE OF HEARING: QUÉBEC, QUEBEC DATE OF HEARING: January 23, 2003 CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A. LÉTOURNEAU J.A. NADON J.A. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: LÉTOURNEAU J.A. DATE OF REASONS: January 23, 2003 APPEARANCES: Michel Poulin FOR THE PLAINTIFF Janie Payette FOR THE DEFENDANT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Poulin, Vézina, Girard FOR THE PLAINTIFF Sainte-Foy, Quebec Department of Justice Canada FOR THE DEFENDANT Montréal, Quebec