A-131-05
A-132-05
BETWEEN:
and
A-131-05
BETWEEN:
NICOLAS MATOSSIAN
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
A-132-05
BETWEEN:
MICHEL L. MARENGÈRE
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
Heard at Montréal, Quebec, on February 8, 2006.
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Montréal, Quebec, on February 8, 2006.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: NADON J.A.
Dockets: A-130-05
A-131-05
A-132-05
Citation: 2006 FCA 55
CORAM: RICHARD C.J.
NOËL J.A.
NADON J.A.
A-130-05
BETWEEN:
RENÉ AMYOT
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
A-131-05
BETWEEN:
NICOLAS MATOSSIAN
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
A-132-05
BETWEEN:
MICHEL L. MARENGÈRE
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Montréal, Quebec, on February 8, 2006)
[1] These are consolidated appeals from a decision of Bédard J. of the Tax Court of Canada dated February 23, 2005, (Matossian v. Canada, [2005] T.C.J. No. 93 (Q.L.), 2005 TCC 21), which dismissed the appellants' appeals from assessments issued by the Minister of Revenue under the Income Tax Act (the "Act").
[2] Specifically, the Minister assessed the appellants, who were at all material times directors of Dominion Bridge Inc. ("Dominion Bridge"), for outstanding amounts representing Dominion Bridge's contributions as an employer under the Canada Pension Plan and the Unemployment Insurance Act.
[3] The appellants challenge the judge's decision on the basis of two arguments. The first one is that the judge erred in concluding that the Minister had proved his claim in accordance with paragraph 227.1(2)c) of the Act which required him to prove his claim within 6 months of Dominion Bridge's assignment in bankruptcy. The appellants submit that by reason of the Minister's failure to file notices of assessment with the proof of claim submitted to the trustee in bankruptcy, the judge ought to have found that the Minister had not met the requirements of paragraph 227.1(2)c) of the Act.
[4] In our view, that argument must fail. The judge concluded that the proof of claim filed by the Minister was sufficient to meet the requirements of the Act. On the basis of the evidence before the judge, we see no basis to disturb his conclusion.
[5] The appellants' second argument is that they exercised due diligence and consequently cannot be held responsible for Dominion Bridge's failure to remit the employer's contributions under the Canada Pension Plan and the Unemployment Insurance Act.
[6] The judge was not so persuaded. On the basis of the evidence before him, he concluded that the appellants had not exercised due diligence. Notwithstanding Mr. Rodgers' forceful arguments to the contrary, we have not been persuaded that in so concluding, the Tax Court judge made any error of law or that he made an overriding or palpable error in making the findings of fact which underlie his legal conclusion.
[7] For these reasons, the appeals will be dismissed with one set of costs in favour of the respondent.
[8] A copy of these reasons will be filed in Court files A-131-05 and A-132-05.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKETS: A-130-05, A-131-05, A-132-05
Appeal from the order of the honourable Paul Bédard, of the Tax Court of Canada dated February 23, 2005 in Court file 2001-1332(IT)G.
STYLE OF CAUSE: René Amyot v. Her Majesty the Queen (A-130-05)
Nicolas Matossian v. Her Majesty the Queen (A-131-05)
Michel L. Marengère v. Her Majesty the Queen (A-132-05)
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: February 8, 2006
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: RICHARD C.J.
NOËL J.A.
NADON J.A.
DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: NADON J.A.
APPEARANCES:
| FOR THE APPELLANTS
|
|
| FOR THE RESPONDENT
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
Montréal, Quebec
|
FOR THE APPELLANTS
|
|
Deputy Attorney General of Canada Montréal, Quebec |
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|