A-184-09
A-185-09
A-186-09
A-183-09
BETWEEN:
and
A-184-09
BETWEEN:
RABINDER PARIHAR
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
A-185-09
BETWEEN:
AAREMIC TRAVEL CORP.
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
A-186-09
BETWEEN:
RANDY PARIHAR
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
Heard at Vancouver, British Columbia, on April 20, 2010.
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Vancouver, British Columbia, on April 20, 2010.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: SHARLOW J.A.
Date: 20100420
Docket: A-183-09
A-184-09
A-185-09
A-186-09
Citation: 2010 FCA 108
CORAM: BLAIS C.J.
NADON J.A.
SHARLOW J.A.
BETWEEN:
REEMA MCGONAGLE
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
A-184-09
BETWEEN:
RABINDER PARIHAR
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
A-185-09
BETWEEN:
AAREMIC TRAVEL CORP.
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
A-186-09
BETWEEN:
RANDY PARIHAR
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Vancouver, British Columbia, on April 20, 2010)
[1] This is a consolidated appeal of four judgments of the Tax Court of Canada (2009 TCC 168) granting the Crown’s motion to quash income tax appeals for 1996, 1997 and 1998 for Reema McGonagle, Rabinder Parihar and Aaremic Travel Corp., and for 1997 and 1998 for Randy Parihar, on the basis that each of the appellants had waived, in writing, the right to appeal the reassessments for those years. The appellants had argued in the Tax Court that the waivers were invalid by reason of coercion, because the tax auditor threatened to close their files if the waivers were not signed, and did not allow the appellants enough time to consult with their tax adviser.
[2] It is undisputed that the judge cited the applicable jurisprudence, in particular Smerchanski v. Minister of National Revenue, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 23, Nguyen v. Canada, 2005 TCC 697, and Anthony v. Canada, 2007 TCC 606. It is also undisputed that, if the waivers are valid, the appeals are barred by subsection 169(2.2) of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.).
[3] The appellants argue that the judge misapprehended the evidence and therefore misapplied the applicable legal principles when he determined that there was no coercion. This is a challenge to the judge’s factual conclusions, which must be reviewed by this Court on the basis of palpable and overriding error.
[4] Despite the able submissions of counsel for the appellants, our review of the record discloses no basis for appellate intervention. In our view, the evidence before the judge supported his findings of fact and his conclusion that the waivers were valid. It follows that these appeals must be dismissed. The respondent is entitled to one set of costs.
"K. Sharlow"
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-183-09
A-184-09
A-185-09
A-186-09
APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE TAX COURT OF CANADA DATED MARCH 24, 2009, (2009 TCC 168).
STYLE OF CAUSE: Reema McGonagle v. Her Majesty the Queen
Rabinder Parihar v. Her Majesty the Queen
Aaremic Travel Corp. v. Her Majesty the Queen
Randy Parihar v. Her Majesty the Queen
PLACE OF HEARING: Vancouver, British Columbia
DATE OF HEARING: April 20, 2010
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: BLAIS C.J.,
NADON, SHARLOW JJ.A.
DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: SHARLOW J.A.
APPEARANCES:
|
FOR THE APPELLANTS
|
|
|
Selina Sit |
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
Vancouver, BC
|
FOR THE APPELLANTS
|
|
Deputy Attorney General of Canada |
FOR THE RESPONDENT |