Federal Court of Appeal Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

Federal Court of Appeal

 

Cour d'appel fédérale

Date: 20111220

Docket: A-131-11

Citation: 2011 FCA 361

 

CORAM:       NOËL J.A.

                        DAWSON J.A.

                        TRUDEL J.A.

 

BETWEEN:

741290 ONTARIO INC.

Appellant

and

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Respondent

 

 

 

Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on December 15, 2011.

Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on December 20, 2011.

 

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:                                                                                   NOËL J.A.

CONCURRED IN BY:                                                                                               DAWSON J.A.

TRUDEL J.A.

 


Federal Court of Appeal

 

Cour d'appel fédérale

 

Date: 20111220

Docket: A-131-11

Citation: 2011 FCA 361

 

CORAM:       NOËL J.A.

                        DAWSON J.A.

                        TRUDEL J.A.

 

BETWEEN:

741290 ONTARIO INC.

Appellant

and

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Respondent

 

 

 

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

NOËL J.A.

[1]               This is an appeal from a decision of Bowie J. of the Tax Court of Canada (the Tax Court judge) upholding the assessment of penalties issued pursuant to subsection 227(9) of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.) (the Act) for failure by the appellant to remit source deductions withheld from the salaries paid to its employees as and when required to do so.

 

[2]               The issue in this appeal is whether the penalties assessed are subject to the due diligence defence which was successfully advanced by the appellant’s directors against assessments issued pursuant to subsection 227.1(3) of the Act.

 

[3]               Like the Tax Court judge, I am prepared to assume for present purposes that a defence may be validly advanced against a failure to remit where the failure is caused by events beyond the employer’s control. However, such a failure cannot possibly be justified by a decision by the employer to appropriate for its own use source deductions in order to keep the businesses afloat in difficult times as was done here (reasons, paras. 21 and 22). In choosing to act as it did, the appellant ignored the unconditional duty imposed on it by subsection 153(1) and is, as such, liable to the assessed penalties.

 

[4]               This duty being distinct and separate from that imposed on corporate directors pursuant to section 227.1, no issue estoppel or abuse of process can result from the fact that the directors in this case were found to have made reasonable attempts to prevent the failure.

 

[5]               I would dismiss the appeal with costs.

 

“Marc Noël”

J.A.

 

“I agree.

           Eleanor R. Dawson J.A.”

 

“I agree.

          Johanne Trudel J.A.”


FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

 

NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

 

 

 

DOCKET:                                                                              A-131-11

 

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BOWIE OF THE TAX COURT OF CANADA DATED MARCH 3, 2011, DOCKET NO. 2007-3055(IT)G.

 

STYLE OF CAUSE:                                                              741290 ONTARIO INC. and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

 

PLACE OF HEARING:                                                        Toronto, Ontario

 

DATE OF HEARING:                                                          December 15, 2011

 

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:                                     Noël J.A.

 

CONCURRED IN BY:                                                         Dawson J.A.

                                                                                                Trudel J.A.

 

DATED:                                                                                 December 20, 2011

 

APPEARANCES:

 

Osborne G. Barnwell

FOR THE APPELLANT

 

Louis L’Heureux

FOR THE RESPONDENT

 

 

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

 

OSBORNE G. BARNWELL

North York, Ontario

 

FOR THE APPELLANT

 

Myles J. Kirvan

Deputy Attorney General of Canada

FOR THE RESPONDENT

 

 

 

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.