Macdonald v. Canada
The trial judge correctly found there was no consensus ad idem on the methodology for allocating partnership losses, that this was an essential term preventing formation of a binding settlement, and that this factual/mixed finding was not vitiated by palpable and overriding error; therefore the appeal is dismissed.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2004 FCA 121
- Parties
- Appellant: Roger K. MacDonald; Appellant: William Campbell; Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada
- Court
- Federal Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 23 March 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Oral Hearing at Federal Court of Appeal; Judgment Delivered
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed with costs.
- Legal Topics
- Enforcement of Settlement Agreements, Consensus Ad Idem, Allocation of Partnership Losses, Severability of Agreements, Standard of Review
- 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
Roger K. MacDonald
Appellant
William Campbell
Appellant
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Oral Hearing at Federal Court of Appeal; Judgment Delivered
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the parties reached an enforceable settlement agreement in November 1995
- 2 Whether allocation of partnership losses was an essential term of that agreement
- 3 Whether the trial judge committed palpable and overriding error in finding no consensus ad idem
Ratio Decidendi
The trial judge correctly found there was no consensus ad idem on the methodology for allocating partnership losses, that this was an essential term preventing formation of a binding settlement, and that this factual/mixed finding was not vitiated by palpable and overriding error; therefore the appeal is dismissed.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed with costs
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Macdonald v. Canada Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2004-03-23 Neutral citation 2004 FCA 121 File numbers A-236-02 Decision Content Date: 20040324 Docket: A-236-02 Citation: 2004 FCA 121 CORAM: ROTHSTEIN J.A. SHARLOW J.A. MALONE J.A. BETWEEN: ROGER K. MACDONALD and WILLIAM CAMPBELL Appellants and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA Respondent Heard at Calgary, Alberta on March 23, 2004. Judgment delivered from the Bench at Calgary, Alberta on March 23, 2004. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: SHARLOW J.A. Date: 20040324 Docket: A-236-02 Citation: 2004 FCA 121 CORAM: ROTHSTEIN J.A. SHARLOW J.A. MALONE J.A. BETWEEN: ROGER K. MACDONALD and WILLIAM CAMPBELL Appellants and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the Bench at Calgary, Alberta on March 23, 2004.) SHARLOW J.A. [1] The appellants brought an action in the Federal Court to enforce what they claimed was a an agreement reached in November of 1995 to settle an income tax appeal. Their action was dismissed on April 4, 2002: MacDonald v. Canada, 2002 D.T.C. 6890 (F.C.T.D.). [2] The Judge concluded that, although the parties had reached agreement on some issues, there was no consensus ad idem on one issue, namely the methodology for allocating losses among partners. The Judge held that to be an essential aspect of the agreement. That meant that it could not be severed so as to permit the Court to enforce the parties' agreement on the other issues. [3] Whether the allocation of partnership losses was an essential element of the agreement is either a question of fact or a question of mixed law and fact. The Judge's conclusion on that point will not be disturbed by this Court in the absence of palpable and overriding error. There is no such error in this case. [4] This appeal will be dismissed with costs. "Karen R. Sharlow" J. A. FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-236-02 STYLE OF CAUSE: ROGER K. MACDONALD AND WILLIAM CAMPELL v. THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA PLACE OF HEARING: Calgary, Alberta DATE OF HEARING: March 23, 2004 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: Rothstein, J.A. Sharlow, J. A. Malone, J.A. DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: SHARLOW, J.A. DATED: March 23, 2004 APPEARANCES: Mr. Martin Zimmerman FOR THE APPELLANTS Mr. David Stam FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Zimmerman & Company FOR THE APPELLANTS Calgary, Alberta Morris A. Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT Deputy Attorney General of Canada