Methamen v. Canada
Given the admissions of fact that the child did not reside with the appellant in Canada, the statutory residency requirement was not met and the appellant was not entitled to the Canada Child Tax Benefit; additional evidence filed on appeal was inadmissible and the Court lacked jurisdiction over claims beyond the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2005 FCA 106
- Parties
- Appellant: Sadok Methamen; Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen
- Court
- Federal Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 15 March 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Tax Appeal (canada Child Tax Benefit) / Federal Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Tax Court of Canada
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed with costs; Tax Court of Canada judgment of October 23, 2003 amended.
- Legal Topics
- Canada Child Tax Benefit, Income Tax Act Ss.122.6 and 122.64, Residency Requirement for Benefits, Admissibility of Fresh Evidence on Appeal, Jurisdictional Limits
- 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
Sadok Methamen
Appellant
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Tax Appeal (canada Child Tax Benefit) / Federal Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Tax Court of Canada
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant was eligible for the Canada Child Tax Benefit under ss.122.6 and 122.64 of the Income Tax Act given the child's residency status
- 2 Whether evidence filed for the first time on appeal may be admitted
- 3 Whether the Court has jurisdiction to hear additional compensation claims and periods not raised below
Ratio Decidendi
Given the admissions of fact that the child did not reside with the appellant in Canada, the statutory residency requirement was not met and the appellant was not entitled to the Canada Child Tax Benefit; additional evidence filed on appeal was inadmissible and the Court lacked jurisdiction over claims beyond the original period and scope, therefore the appeal is dismissed.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed with costs; Tax Court of Canada judgment of October 23, 2003 amended.
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed with costs.
- The judgment of October 23, 2003 by the Tax Court of Canada is amended to read: The appeal against the decision by the Minister of National Revenue to deny the appellant the Canada Child Tax Benefit, effective September 2002, established under sections 122.6 and 122.64 of the Income Tax Act with respect to base...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Methamen v. Canada Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2005-03-15 Neutral citation 2005 FCA 106 File numbers A-294-04 Decision Content Date: 20050315 Docket: A-294-04 Citation: 2005 FCA 106 CORAM: DÉCARY J.A. LÉTOURNEAU J.A. NADON J.A. BETWEEN: SADOK METHAMEN Appellant and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent Hearing held at Montréal, Quebec, on March 15, 2005. Judgment delivered at Montréal, Quebec, on March 15, 2005. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: LÉTOURNEAU J.A. Date: 20050315 Docket: A-294-04 Citation: 2005 FCA 106 CORAM: DÉCARY J.A. LÉTOURNEAU J.A. NADON J.A. BETWEEN: SADOK METHAMEN Appellant and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the bench at Montréal, Quebec, on March 15, 2005.) LÉTOURNEAU J.A.: [1] The appellant claimed a child tax benefit for the care and education of his daughter, a minor who suffered from poor health, under sections 122.6 and 122.64 of the Income Tax Act (the Act). Considering the admissions of fact concerning the period in question, to the effect that the child did not reside with the appellant in Canada, Tardif J. had no alternative but to apply the Act and uphold the Minister's determination dismissing the appellant's claim. [2] As is unfortunately often the case when taxpayers represent themselves before the Tax Court of Canada, the appellant filed evidence before this Court that had not been introduced at trial and therefore could not be admitted in evidence at this late stage: see Ray v. Canada, [2003] F.C.J. No. 1226. [3] Furthermore, on appeal, the appellant filed an application for compensation that extended beyond both the period involved, that is, effective September 2002, and the scope of the dispute. It is a child tax benefit claim for his son, who has now reached the age of majority, for base taxation years other than 2001, the year invoked for his daughter. We have no jurisdiction to accept the submission of or hear these additional claims. [4] Under the circumstances, the appeal will be dismissed with costs. However, the formal judgment dated October 23, 2003, will be amended to read as follows: The appeal against the decision by the Minister of National Revenue to deny the appellant the Canada Child Tax Benefit, effective September 2002, established under sections 122.6 and 122.64 of the Income Tax Act with respect to base taxation year 2001, is dismissed in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment. "Gilles Létourneau" J.A. Certified true translation Michael Palles FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-294-04 STYLE OF CAUSE: SADOK METHAMEN Appellant and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec DATE OF HEARING: March 15, 2005 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: Décary, Létourneau and Nadon JJ.A. DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: LÉTOURNEAU J.A. APPEARANCES: Sadok Methamen FOR HIMSELF Nathalie Labbé FOR THE DEFENDANT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Sadok Methamen Sousse, Tunisia FOR HIMSELF JOHN H. SIMS, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada Montréal, Quebec FOR THE DEFENDANT Date: 20050315 Docket: A-294-04 Montréal, Quebec, March 15, 2005 CORAM: DÉCARY J.A. LÉTOURNEAU J.A. NADON J.A. BETWEEN: SADOK METHAMEN Appellant and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent JUDGMENT The appeal is dismissed with costs. The judgment of October 23, 2003 by the Tax Court of Canada is amended to read as follows: The appeal against the decision by the Minister of National Revenue to deny the appellant the Canada Child Tax Benefit, effective September 2002, established under sections 122.6 and 122.64 of the Income Tax Act with respect to base taxation year 2001, is dismissed in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment. "Robert Décary" J.A. Certified true translation Michael Palles