Chartier v. Canada

Chartier v. Canada Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2024-05-22 Neutral citation 2024 FCA 98 File numbers A-147-23 Decision Content Date: 20240522 Docket: A-147-23 Citation: 2024 FCA 98 [ENGLISH TRANSLATION] CORAM: LEBLANC J.A. ROUSSEL J.A. GOYETTE J.A. BETWEEN: JULES CHARTIER Appellant and HIS MAJESTY THE KING Respondent Heard at Winnipeg, Manitoba, on May 22, 2024. Judgment delivered from the bench at Winnipeg, Manitoba, on May 22, 2024. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: GOYETTE J.A. Date: 20240522 Docket: A-147-23 Citation: 2024 FCA 98 [ENGLISH TRANSLATION] CORAM: LEBLANC J.A. ROUSSEL J.A. GOYETTE J.A. BETWEEN: JULES CHARTIER Appellant and HIS MAJESTY THE KING Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the bench at Winnipeg, Manitoba, on May 22, 2024.) GOYETTE J.A. [1] The appellant is appealing a decision of the Tax Court of Canada delivered orally on May 2, 2023. This decision deals with the penalty set out in subsection 162(1) of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.) (the Act), which applies when a taxpayer is late in filing an income tax return. This penalty is calculated based on the unpaid tax as of the date specified in the Act for filing the return. [2] The appellant does not dispute having filed his income tax return late for the 2014 taxation year. Rather, he went before the Tax Court of Canada because he believes that the Minister of National Revenue incorrectly calculated the penalty resulting from this delay. According to the appellant, if the Minister had taken into account the credits available in his account and the three cheques he had sent to the Canada Revenue Agency, the Minister would have concluded that the appellant had no unpaid taxes as of the filing date of his 2014 return and, therefore, that the amount of the penalty is zero. [3] The Tax Court of Canada dismissed the appeal. Referring to the evidence before it, the Court concluded that the appellant had given no indication to the Agency to explain how to allot the amount of the cheques to the tax balance the appellant had to pay for 2014. Furthermore, the Court considered that it did not have jurisdiction to retroactively revise the allocations of payments and credits to the appellant’s account. [4] Before this Court, the appellant makes two main arguments. First, he argues that the Tax Court of Canada erred by confirming the penalty amount calculated by the Minister. In support of this argument, the appellant refers to the cheques and payments the Tax Court of Canada considered. Second, the appellant argues that the Tax Court of Canada failed to uphold procedural fairness by not respecting his choice to have a trial conducted entirely in French and by not allowing him to cross-examine the deponent of an affidavit produced by the respondent. [5] We cannot accept these arguments. [6] With regard to the calculation of the penalty, when a debtor makes a payment he may appropriate it to any debt he pleases and the creditor must apply it accordingly. If the debtor does not appropriate it, the creditor has a right to do so to any debt he pleases: Andrew Paving & Engineering Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue, 84 D.T.C. 1157 at 1159, citing Agricultural Insurance Co. v. Sargeant, (1896), 26 S.C.R. 29 at 36; La Ronge Lumber & Electric Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue, 85 D.T.C. 573 at paras. 10–11. [7] In this case, the Tax Court of Canada concluded that the appellant did not provide any instructions for the allocation of his cheques. The Court also noted that the appellant sometimes sends confusing information to the Agency, such as his spouse’s social insurance number or his sales tax number, which could lead the Agency to apply a payment to a different account than the appellant’s income tax account. Since this Court identifies no palpable and overriding error in the Tax Court of Canada’s assessment of the evidence—a stringent standard of intervention—it cannot intervene. [8] Furthermore, in light of the evidence before it, we are of the opinion that the Tax Court of Canada was justified in concluding that it could not substitute its own conclusions for the Agency’s and apply the payments and credits to the appellant’s tax account. Similarly, we cannot accept the appellant’s argument that the reassessment for the 2013 taxation year should have been established before the reassessment for 2014. Not only was this argument not submitted to the Tax Court of Canada, but we also have no information that would allow us to rule on this matter. During the hearing, the appellant raised several arguments that are not included in his memorandum and regarding which he could not refer us to the appeal record. Once again, as we explained to him during the hearing, we cannot consider these arguments. [9] Regarding procedural fairness, the transcript of the hearing reveals that the trial was held in French and that references to decisions available only in English were translated by counsel for the respondent. As for the cross-examination of the deponent of an affidavit produced by the respondent, the evidence reveals that the affidavit was filed months before the hearing, but the appellant did not communicate his intention to cross-examine the deponent until the day before the hearing. If the appellant wished to cross-examine the deponent, he should have served her with a subpoena requiring her attendance at the hearing (Rule 19 of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (Informal Procedure), SOR/90-688b) or, at the very least, notified counsel for the respondent in a timely manner. In this context, we cannot conclude that there has been a breach of procedural fairness. [10] For all of these reasons, the appeal will be dismissed with costs. “Nathalie Goyette” J.A. Certified true translation Vera Roy, Senior Jurilinguist FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-147-23 STYLE OF CAUSE: JULES CHARTIER v. HIS MAJESTY THE KING PLACE OF HEARING: Winnipeg, Manitoba DATE OF HEARING: May 22, 2024 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: LEBLANC J.A. ROUSSEL J.A. GOYETTE J.A. DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: GOYETTE J.A. APPEARANCES: Jules Chartier For the appellant REPRESENTING HIMSELF Caroline Pellerin For the respondent HIS MAJESTY THE KING SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Shalene Curtis-Micallef Deputy Attorney General of Canada For the respondent HIS MAJESTY THE KING