Porisky v. Canada

Porisky v. Canada Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2025-11-04 Neutral citation 2025 FCA 197 File numbers A-282-24 Decision Content Date: 20251104 Docket: A-282-24 Citation: 2025 FCA 197 CORAM: STRATAS J.A. MONAGHAN J.A. ROUSSEL J.A. BETWEEN: RUSSELL ANTHONY PORISKY, ELAINE LOUISE GOULD and ELAINE LOUISE MADELINE GOULD Appellants and HIS MAJESTY THE KING Respondent Heard at Vancouver, British Columbia, on November 4, 2025. Judgment delivered from the Bench at Vancouver, British Columbia, on November 4, 2025. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: MONAGHAN J.A. Date: 20251104 Docket: A-282-24 Citation: 2025 FCA 197 CORAM: STRATAS J.A. MONAGHAN J.A. ROUSSEL J.A. BETWEEN: RUSSELL ANTHONY PORISKY, ELAINE LOUISE GOULD and ELAINE LOUISE MADELINE GOULD Appellants and HIS MAJESTY THE KING Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the Bench at Vancouver, British Columbia, on November 4, 2025). MONAGHAN J.A. [1] Between 2004 and 2008, the appellants promoted the idea that people could avoid the obligations to pay income tax and to collect goods and services tax based on Mr. Porisky’s interpretation of the tax legislation and the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Stewart v. Canada, 2002 SCC 46. To this end, Mr. Porisky established the Paradigm Education Group. Under that name, the appellants hosted seminars, for which they sold tickets, and sold books, training manuals, videos and other written material. Over the five years in issue, they generated more than $1.4 million in gross revenues. Nonetheless they reported no income, paid no income tax, and neither collected nor remitted goods and services tax. [2] The Minister of National Revenue assessed the appellants for unpaid income taxes and uncollected goods and services taxes, and imposed penalties on them. In issuing the assessments, the Minister considered the appellants equal partners in a partnership. The appellants unsuccessfully appealed the assessments to the Tax Court of Canada: Porisky v. The King, 2024 TCC 84 (per Wong J). The Tax Court found the appellant’s activities were “conducted in a manner consistent with objective standards of business-like behaviour”, were “profit-making” and thus a source of income: reasons at para. 41. [3] The appellants appeal, asserting the Tax Court erred. While they raise many issues, all turn on us accepting Mr. Porisky’s views regarding the interpretation of Stewart—that because they claim they had no subjective intention to earn a profit, the appellants’ activities were not a source of income, but a personal endeavour. [4] This Court has consistently rejected those views: Meerman v. Canada, 2019 FCA 119, leave to appeal to SCC refused, 38886 (13 February 2020); De Geest v. Canada, 2022 FCA 22; Shull v. Canada, 2025 FCA 25. Simply put, the appellants have not identified any error of law or palpable and overriding error. Therefore, this appeal has no merit and must be dismissed. [5] Accordingly, we will dismiss the appeals with costs in the all-inclusive fixed amount of $2,500. "K.A. Siobhan Monaghan" J.A. FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-282-24 STYLE OF CAUSE: RUSSELL ANTHONY PORISKY, ELAINE LOUISE GOULD and ELAINE LOUISE MADELINE GOULD v. HIS MAJESTY THE KING PLACE OF HEARING: VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA DATE OF HEARING: November 4, 2025 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: STRATAS J.A. MONAGHAN J.A. ROUSSEL J.A. DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: MONAGHAN J.A. APPEARANCES: Russell Anthony Porisky Elaine Louise Gould For The Appellants ON THEIR OWN BEHALF Mark Shearer Christa Akey For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Shalene Curtis-Micallef Deputy Attorney General of Canada For The Respondent