Date: 20030915
Docket: A-118-02
Citation: 2003 FCA 335
CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A.
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
NOËL J.A.
BETWEEN:
BERTRAND DUPUIS
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE
Respondent
Hearing held at Québec, Quebec, September 15, 2003.
Judgment delivered from the bench at Québec, Quebec, September 15, 2003.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
Date: 20030915
Docket: A-118-02
Citation: 2003 FCA 335
CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A.
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
NOËL J.A.
BETWEEN:
BERTRAND DUPUIS
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the bench at Québec, Quebec
September 15, 2003)
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
[1] The applicant attacks by way of judicial review a decision by a deputy judge of the Tax Court of Canada in which he held that the applicant's alleged employment was not an insurable employment for the periods in dispute. The deputy judge reached this conclusion because he was convinced that there was no employer-employee relationship between the applicant and the payer.
[2] In this court, the applicant's counsel gave two reasons in support of his application. First, he submitted that the deputy judge made erroneous findings of fact by relying on facts that are not on the record. Notwithstanding the efforts of counsel for the applicant, we have not been persuaded that this was the case. The facts to which the deputy judge referred were not inconsistent with the conclusions he drew from them.
[3] Counsel submits, as his second reason, that the deputy judge erred in law by drawing an inference unfavourable to the applicant from the fact that he did not call the payer as a witness. He submits that it was the duty of the deputy judge to satisfy himself of the reasons why the payer did not testify. With respect, we think this criticism is unfounded, for the following reasons.
[4] Before the Tax Court of Canada, the applicant had the burden of refuting the presumptions on which the Minister relied in concluding that the employment was not an insurable employment. The issue of the employer-employee relationship is at the very heart of this litigation. In the Tax Court of Canada the applicant's counsel, for reasons that are known only to him, preferred to rely on a statement by the payer, which, moreover, was not in evidence, instead of summonsing the payer and getting him to testify. Also, he did not provide any explanation to the deputy judge of the Tax Court of Canada concerning the absence of the payer. It was not the task of the deputy judge to substitute himself for the applicant's counsel.
[5] In the circumstances, it was possible for him to make an inference unfavourable to the applicant.
[6] For these reasons, we are of the opinion that the application for judicial review must be dismissed with costs.
"Gilles Létourneau"
J.A.
Certified true translation
Suzanne Gauthier, C. Tr., LL.L.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
Date: 20030915
Docket: A-118-02
Between:
BERTRAND DUPUIS
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-118-02
STYLE: BERTRAND DUPUIS v. THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE
PLACE OF HEARING: QUÉBEC, QUEBEC
DATE OF HEARING: September 15, 2003
CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A.
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
NOËL J.A.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
OF THE COURT: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
DATED: September 15, 2003
APPEARANCES:
Takioullah Eidda FOR THE APPLICANT
Bernard Fontaine FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Eidda et associés FOR THE APPLICANT
Québec, Quebec
Department of Justice Canada FOR THE RESPONDENT
Montréal, Quebec