Vézina v. Canada (Attorney General)

Vézina v. Canada (Attorney General) Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2003-02-05 Neutral citation 2003 FCA 67 File numbers A-591-01 Decision Content Date: 20030205 Docket: A-591-01 Neutral Citation: 2003 FCA 67 CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A. LÉTOURNEAU J.A. NADON J.A. BETWEEN: PIERRE VÉZINA Applicant and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OF CANADA (MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE) Respondent Hearing held at Montréal, Quebec, on February 5, 2003. Judgment delivered from the bench at Montréal, Quebec, on February 5, 2003. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: LÉTOURNEAU J.A. Date: 20030205 Docket: A-591-01 Neutral Citation: 2003 FCA 67 CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A. LÉTOURNEAU J.A. NADON J.A. BETWEEN: PIERRE VÉZINA Applicant and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA (MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE) Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the bench at Montréal, Quebec on February 5, 2003.) LÉTOURNEAU J.A. [1] It is not without hesitation that we have decided to uphold the decision of the Deputy Judge of the Tax Court of Canada and to dismiss the application for judicial review. [2] The applicant takes issue with the Deputy Judge for admitting into evidence, despite his objections, three statements made by witnesses who were not present. Counsel for the applicant objected on the grounds of his right to cross-examine and the lack of reliability of the statements. He also submitted that the three statements, which revealed the existence of a network for issuing false records of employment, coloured the debate and improperly influenced the Deputy Judge. [3] The evidence in the file confirms the validity of the presumptions cited by the Minister of National Revenue (the Minister). Two examples will suffice by way of illustration. [4] The Minister cited the presumption that the applicant had not rendered any services to the payer during the period at issue, and therefore there was no contract of service. At pages 47 and 48 of the transcript, Mr. Roy, an appeals officer with the Department of Revenue, testified that the payer did not file a T-4 for the year 1991 and did not issue a T-4 for the applicant for the year 1992. In addition, in the income tax return filed by the applicant for the year 1992, there is no mention of any earnings originating from the payer with which the applicant claims to have held an insurable employment: see page 51 of the transcript. [5] The Minister also alleged that there was a significant contradiction between the applicant and the payer regarding the nature of the services rendered. The applicant asserted that he had worked in renovations as a manual labourer, but the payer contended that the applicant's work consisted in finding contracts for the payer. The investigator, Mr. Roy, testified that he agreed with the latter: see page 41 of the transcript. The Deputy Judge pointed out this contradiction and accepted it. Mr. Roy's testimony does not seem to have been contradicted on this point, according to the evidence that we have in the record. [6] Regardless of the dispute about the admissibility or the probative value of the three statements regarding the network of false records of employment, it is nonetheless true that five out of six allegations of the Minister, which were denied by the applicant, were generally confirmed by the evidence, including the two already mentioned, which go to the very existence of a contract of service. [7] In addition, although the Deputy Judge admitted the three statements after taking the objection under reserve, there is nothing in his decision that indicates or supports a finding that they had a significant impact on it. It is clear that a rehearing of the case would inevitably lead to the same outcome: Mobil Oil v. Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 202, at page 228; Yassine v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1994] F.C.J. No. 949 (F.C.A.), paragraph 9; Cartier v. Canada (Attorney General), [2002] F.C.J. No. 1386, paragraphs 31 to 33. [8] Apart from the three statements, the evidence indicates that the applicant failed to discharge his burden of proof and to rebut the presumptions that there was no contract of service and no services rendered. [9] For these reasons, the application for judicial review will be dismissed with costs. "Gilles Létourneau" J.A. Certified true translation Mary Jo Egan, LLB FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA APPEAL DIVISION Date: 20030205 Docket: A-591-01 Between: PIERRE VÉZINA Applicant and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA (MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE) Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA APPEAL DIVISION SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-591-01 CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A. LÉTOURNEAU J.A. NADON J.A. STYLE OF CAUSE: PIERRE VÉZINA Applicant and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA (MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE) Respondent PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec DATE OF HEARING: February 5, 2003 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Létourneau DATED: February 5, 2003 APPEARANCES: François De Vette FOR THE APPLICANT Nathalie Goyette FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: François De Vette Montréal, Quebec FOR THE APPLICANT Morris Rosenberg Deputy Attorney General of Canada Montréal, Quebec FOR THE RESPONDENT Date: 20030205 Docket: A-591-01 Montréal, Quebec, February 5, 2003 CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A. LÉTOURNEAU J.A. NADON J.A. BETWEEN: PIERRE VÉZINA Applicant and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA (MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE) Respondent JUDGMENT The application for judicial review is dismissed with costs. "Alice Desjardins" J.A. Certified true translation Mary Jo Egan, LLB