|
Docket: 2001-4224(EXP)G |
|
BETWEEN: |
|
PAUL MARÉCHAL, |
|
Appellant, |
|
and |
|
|
|
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, |
|
Respondent. |
____________________________________________________________________
Appeal heard on May 19 and 20, 2004, at Montréal, Quebec.
|
Before: The Honourable D.G.H. Bowman, Associate Chief Justice |
|
|
|
|
|
Appearances: |
|
|
|
|
|
For the Appellant: |
The Appellant himself |
|
|
|
|
Counsel for the Respondent: |
Chantal Jacquier |
____________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
It is ordered that the appeal from the assessment made under the Income Tax Act for the 2000 taxation year is dismissed without costs.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 17th day of August 2004.
|
"D.G.H. Bowman" |
Bowman, A.C.J.
|
Citation: 2004TCC464 |
|
Date: 20040817 |
|
Docket: 2001-4224(EXP)G |
|
|
|
BETWEEN: |
|
PAUL MARÉCHAL, |
|
Appellant, |
|
|
|
and |
|
|
|
|
|
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, |
|
Respondent. |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Bowman, A.C.J.
[1] The issue in this appeal is the fair market value ("fmv") on November 10, 2000, of a ceramic sculpture created by a well-known Quebec sculptor, Louis Archambault, which the appellant donated to the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts. The Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board (hereinafter referred to as "the Board") determined the fmv to be $5,000. The appellant contends that the fmv is $8,000.
[2] The appellant acquired the sculpture for $1,719.23 in December 1999 at l'Hôtel des encans at Montréal. The price was $1,300 but taxes and commission brought it up to $1,719,23.
[3] I shall endeavour to state what I understand to be the appellant's case. Mr. Maréchal is highly qualified in the field of art and has a Master's Degree in art history. He is the curator of the art collection of Power Corporation. The ceramic sculpture in question, entitled "Head", was given by him to the Museum and the Board requested an appraisal of the work. The Museum obtained one dated September 29, 2000, from Eric Devlin, an art dealer and owner of Galerie Eric Devlin, in the amount of $8,000. In response to the Board's request for further substantiation of the figure of $8,000, Eric Devlin, on December 29, 2000, sent the Board a letter from Mr. Simon Blais of Galerie Simon Blais, who also supported the valuation of $8,000.
[4] Mr. Maréchal argued that for the Board to reject these two valuations and to substitute its own figure of $5,000 is arbitrary and unjustified.
[5] The expert witness called by the respondent, Joyce Millar, put the value of the work at a maximum of $3,500. At the time she made her valuation she was unaware of the Board's determination of $5,000 or the appraisals of Devlin and Blais at $8,000.
[6] Mr. Maréchal, relying upon a definition of fmv which includes the phrase "the highest price" which a willing and knowledgeable vendor and purchaser would agree upon, contends that since we have a variety of figures ($1,719.21, $3,500, $5,000 and $8,000) the highest should be chosen which is $8,000. As a preliminary matter I can dispose of this contention fairly quickly. Where the Board or this Court has the obligation of determining the fmv of a property and is faced with several different figures it does not fulfil that obligation by picking the highest. It is not bound by any valuation and is not obliged to pick any one. Its obligation is to do the best it can to arrive at a true value, difficult as this may be. This may involve rejecting all valuations, or taking material from some or all of them and arriving at a conclusion that differs from all of the valuations. It is not a mechanical process. It is one that requires weighing all of the material before it and applying its best judgment to arrive at a correct result.
[7] I turn now to a consideration of the fmv of the work. It is a ceramic clay vase about 22 inches high in the shape of a human head. It appeared to the expert witness Joyce Millar to be in good to excellent condition. It was created in 1952 by Louis Archambault (1915-2003) a well-known Canadian sculptor with an international reputation. A number of his ceramic works are exhibited in public galleries such as the Musée des beaux-arts de Montréal, the Musée national des beaux-arts du Québec, the Robert McLaughlin Gallery and the Art Gallery of Ontario. It is displayed in a glass case in the Museum. A photograph is attached as Schedule A.
[8] There can be no question of Louis Archambault's pre-eminence as a sculptor. In light of his importance it is worth reproducing a portion of Ms. Millar's report:
Artist's reputation
34. Louis Archambault was a well-known Canadian sculptor with an international reputation. Considered one of the pre-eminent figures of modern sculpture in Quebec, Archambault exhibited widely, both in Canada and Europe, and received numerous awards throughout his long career.
35. Born in Montreal in 1915, Archambault received his Bachelor of Arts from the Université de Montréal in 1936 and a diploma in ceramics from the École des Beaux-arts in 1939. In the mid-1940s, Archambault shared a ceramic studio with Charles Daudelin in the studio building of the École des beaux-arts, the Maison Cormier, exploring the clay medium both as a teacher and as a sculptor. He taught at Montreal's École du Meuble and the École des Beaux-Arts, the University of British Columbia, and at the Université du Québec à Montréal from 1969 to his retirement.
36. In 1946 his clay sculpture, L'Appel (1946; MQ), won First Prize in Les Concours artistique de la province du Québec, and in 1951, Archambault gained international fame when he exhibited his Oiseau de fer (Iron Bird) at the International Outdoor Exhibition of Sculpture at Battersea Park, London, England with Moore, Rodin, Giacometti, Arp, Calder, Lipchitz, and Pevsner, among others. His sculpture was featured in the Canadian pavilion at the XXVII Venice Biennial in 1956, and in 1958, in collaboration with Montreal industrial designer, Norman Slater, Archambault created a wall of ceramic tiles mounted in an aluminum structure for the Universal Exposition in Brussels.
37. Although in 1952, Archambault exhibited his ceramic work, including some ceramic sculpture, at the Art Gallery of Toronto (with paintings by Alfred Pellan), by the mid 1950s, he had turned from ceramics sculpture and decorative pieces, to wrought iron and bronze sculptures, and later used aluminum for his large-scale work. At EXPO 67, he was the only Canadian sculptor among fifty contemporary sculptors to be included in the International Garden of Sculpture on Ile Sainte-Hélène, and his large eight-foot high figures, Personages, dominated the terrace around the Canadian Pavilion.
38. In the 1960s, Archambault received several public commissions including L'évitation et direction for Toronto's Pearson International Airport (1964), Voyageurs de l'espace for Uplands Airport (Ottawa International Airport, 1960), "Bird" fountain for Ottawa's City Hall, and Le Trois anges radieux in the Grand Salles of Place des Arts, Montreal (1963). In 1968, Louis Archambault was made an Officer of the Order of Canada. He had major solo exhibitions at the Musée d'art contemporain, Montréal in 1972, at the Centre culturel canadien, Paris, in 1980, and at the Musée des Beaux-Arts, Montréal in 1993.
39. The Louis Archambault Archive, consisting of more than twenty sculptures and his private papers and drawings, was established at the Musée des Beaux-Arts in Montréal in the early 1990's and his monumental series of wood sculptures, Mystic Symbols (1980-1993), was acquired by the Musée in 1996. Archambault had an extensive exhibition record and his work can be found in major museums and galleries throughout Canada and in Europe. He died in January 2003.
40. While Archambault certainly has an established reputation as a sculptor in the national and international arena, the fair market value of this ceramic work can not be determined solely on the basis of this reputation.
Comparisons
41. There are very few decorative works by Archambault in public collections. They are listed in Appendix 4.
42. While there are a number of Archambault sculptures in public collections, it is unrealistic, in my opinion, to compare his ceramic production, whether functional or decorative, with his sculpture.
Comparison of this work with other similar work by the artist
43. Louis Archambault created a body of ceramic work during the late 1940s and the 1950s and considered it separate from his sculpture. A detailed description of his ceramic work is provided in Appendix 5.
44. Prices for the following ceramic works by Louis Archambault have been established. In 1968 the Musée national des beaux-arts du Québec (formerly the Musée de Québec) acquired a Vase, 1949, faience, 47.5 cm. (# 68.217) for $85.00. No present value has been determined. However, in 2001, a plate, Plat avec décor d'oignons, 1951 (porcelain, under glazes and transparent glaze), 7 x 56 x 27.9 cm. was donated to the Musée. Two evaluations were given, one for $1800 and the other for $2500. The Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board then determined the value at $2150. (Appendix 6)
45. In 1967, the Robert McLaughlin Gallery acquired an Archambault ceramic piece, Femme au Chignon, 1954, as part of the Alexandra Luke donation. It was appraised in 1970 for $350. (Appendix 7)
Prices of ceramic work by contemporary artists:
46. In looking at the prices of ceramic work by contemporary artists, such as the following, it is important to note that a comparison of such pieces with the Louis Archambault work under consideration can be misleading.
- Jordi Bonet - Hotel des Encans - 02/26/01 - sculpture de devant de cheminee (110 c 214 c 43 x 84) ceramic - $4000
- Joe Fafard - Masters - 06/13/01 - Rae 38 x 15 cm - ceramic sculpture - $8000
- Heffel's - 11/07/96 - cow - 56 x 33 cm - ceramic sculpture - $7500
- Sotheby's - 11/15/95 - Little Choc - 36 x 14 cm - painted ceramic sculpture - $6000
- Vic Cicansky - 11/29/00 - Couch Potatoes, 27 x 11 cm - ceramic sculpture 1987 - $900
- 10/24/94 - VG - untitled, 45 x 49 cm - glazed ceramic - $3000
- Claude Vermette 02/21/94 HE - untitled, 39 x 15 cm - enamelled ceramic - $80
- Robert Roussil - 10/20/92 HE - Sans titre, 43 x 37 cm - clay sculpture - $1100
- Emily Carr - 05/10/00 - Thunderbird, 6 x 1 cm - painted ceramic $1200
- 11/06/97 - Thunderbird, frog, Bear - 3 ceramic sculptures -
$6000
47. For example, the ceramic works of Joe Fafard are clearly individual sculptures and cannot be compared to decorative or functional objects. A similar comment can be made regarding the work of ceramic sculptor Vic Cicansky.
48. In addition, for Emily Carr, one of Canada's best known painters, the values realized for her ceramic pieces are based on her reputation and on the fact that her ceramics are sculptures, not part of a ceramic production as in the case of Archambault's ceramics.
Artistic merit and cultural significance of this work:
49. The work under consideration Tête (Head), is one of the few ceramic pieces by Archambault to have been made available to the public. It is unknown, at this time, as to how many pieces from his ceramic production (noted as being 300 for one year circa 1957) remain in private ownership, and if and when they will appear on the open market.
50. In terms of the artist's significance vis-à-vis Quebec sculpture and our cultural heritage, there is no question that Louis Archambault is one of Quebec's leading sculptors of the mid-twentieth century. Certainly, his ceramic production played an important role, not only in his own evolution as a sculptor, but also in the development of sculpture in Quebec. His influence on his contemporaries through his teaching is also recognized. However, in my opinion, his ceramic pieces, whether decorative objects such as the work in question, or his more functional plates and platters, can not be considered in the same category as his sculpture.
Conclusion
51. In establishing the fair market value of the work by Louis Archambault, I have differentiated between the artist's sculpture and his decorative ceramic production. I have also considered the price paid at auction in December 1999, the particular limited market for such ceramics, the quality of the work as well as the artist reputation.
52. In my opinion, the fair market value of the work was, in November 2000, $3,500. In fact, this value indicates a maximum for the work under these circumstances.
[9] Ms. Millar discussed a number of other ceramic artists such as Joe Fafard and Vic Cicansky. The only sales that came near to the $8,000 claimed by the appellant for Head were three sculptures by Joe Fafard, Rae, Cow, and Little Choc, which sold for $8,000, $7,500 and $6,000 respectively. It is difficult to draw any firm conclusion from these. Prices for ceramic sculptures seem to vary substantially and to value one ceramic sculptor's work by comparison with a very different work by another sculptor strikes me as risky and unreliable. The photographs of the work of these and other sculptors, including Emily Carr, demonstrate that they all have different styles. Similarly, attempting to value a ceramic sculpture by an artist by comparison with a bronze sculpture by the same artist seems to me to be questionable.
[10] Counsel referred to a number of cases in this court, including Aikman et al. v. The Queen, 2000 DTC 1874 (affd) 2002 DTC 6874 and Klotz v. The Queen, 2004 T.C.C. 147. The approach taken in those cases is that a very useful starting point in valuing property is what was paid for it and, in the absence of reliable market comparables, it may well be determinative.
[11] Mr. Maréchal relied heavily on the two valuations provided by the Museum to the Board. Counsel for the respondent objected to Mr. Maréchal's introducing these in evidence because he had not complied with the rule that requires that expert witness reports be served and filed in court 30 days before they are to be used and that the witness be available for cross-examination.
[12] The respondent's objection was not without merit but I exercised my discretion to permit the appellant to put them in evidence. These reports were of course before the Board when it made its determination of value. Moreover, the appellant is self-represented and the amount of money is not large - the parties are $3,000 apart. The cost to Mr. Maréchal of calling these witnesses could well exceed this amount. Self-represented litigants are entitled to expect that they will be given every opportunity to put their case in as fully as possible without being impeded with technical and evidentiary obstacles.
[13] A large part of the appellant's case was based upon these appraisals and therefore I reproduce them. They are relatively short:
(Appraisal 1) (Translation)
Montreal, September 29, 2000
Danièle Archambault
Montreal Museum of Fine Arts
2189 Bishop
Montreal
Tel.: 285-1600, ext. 167
Subject: Appraisal of a ceramic work by Louis Archambault
Dear Ms. Archambault:
At your request, we have appraised the following piece by Louis Archambault, donated by Mr. Paul Maréchal:
Title: Untitled (woman's head)
Date: 1952
Medium: Glazed ceramic
Dimensions: 58 x 32 x 26 cm
Appraisal: $8,000
Louis Archambault (1915- ) is a sculptor whose career spans some sixty years. The work appraised can be associated with his surrealist ceramics, which he created during the Second World War. The 1950s were marked by large sculptures in bent and cut metal or bronze, such as the work he created for the Canadian pavilion in Brussels (1956).
Interest in this artist has been steady, as evidenced by the exhibition at the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts (1993) and the documentary presented last March at the International Festival of Films on Art. However, the market for works by this artist has remained small in spite of major commissions (Sunburst, 1959, owned by Sun Life in Toronto; L'Ange, owned by Place des arts). Louis Archambault has taught at UQAM.
The only recent transaction we have been able to find is the National Gallery of Canada's purchase of a small plaster head (24 x 12 x 13 cm), dated 1954, for $1,500 in 1990. Although this transaction occurred some years ago, we have little choice but to refer to it since sculptors from that generation are rare - and often forgotten - with the exception of Roussil and Vaillancourt, who, though younger, can be associated with that generation of sculptors. In light of the significant difference in size and the materials used, we have valued this work by Louis Archambault at $8,000.
We determined the work's fair market value as defined by the Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board, namely the highest price, expressed in terms of money, that the property would bring in an open market in a transaction between a willing buyer and a willing seller who are knowledgeable and informed and who are acting independently of each other.
This appraisal was made to the best of my knowledge following an examination of the work, and the price indicated represents the fair market value at the date of the appraisal. Moreover, I have no interest in this transaction between the donor, Mr. Paul Maréchal, and the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts. I have not bought or sold this work. My fees consist of a lump sum and therefore do not depend on the appraisal amount.
I have been in business for twelve years, have been interested in the contemporary art market for twenty years as a collector, and have been a member of the Association des galeries d'art contemporain (AGAC) since I began my business.
(letter signed by)
Eric Devlin
---------------
Montreal, December 29, 2000
Mr. Marc Bédard
Canadian Cultural Property
Export Review Board
15 Eddy Street, 3rd floor
Hull, K1A 0M5
Fax: 819-997-7757
Subject: Further information regarding the donation by Paul Maréchal of a sculpture by Louis Archambault
Dear Sir:
The Board has asked the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts to provide additional arguments to support my appraisal of a work by Louis Archambault donated by Mr. Paul Maréchal.
In this regard, I have enclosed a letter from Mr. Simon Blais, as well as two recent transaction records.
Sincerely,
(letter signed by)
Eric Devlin
(Appraisal 2) (Translation)
Ms. Danielle Archambault Montreal, November 1, 2000
Montreal Museum of Fine Arts
1800 Sherbrooke Street West
Montreal, Quebec H3G 2T9
Re.: Paul Maréchal file, appraisal of a ceramic work by Louis Archambault at $8,000
Dear Ms. Archambault:
At your request, I would like to add some additional information regarding the appraisal of a sculpture by the artist Louis Archambault, donated to the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts by Mr. Maréchal.
To substantiate the appraisal, and because this artist has sold very few works over his career, I will have to use as comparables sales of works by other artists with comparable careers.
For example, in March 1997, we sold Famille, a bronze by Charles Daudelin, 1949, of which 6 copies were produced (34 x 25 x 4 cm), for $6,000; in January 1998, we sold a burnt wood by Armand Vaillancourt, 1963, for $16,500; in 1995, the Galerie d'Arts Contemporains sold Sans titre by Jordi Bonet, a unique aluminum sculpture measuring 16 x 12 x 3 inches for $12,000; Robert Roussil's, Mère et enfant, sculpted wood, 1951, approximately 100 cm high, was acquired in 1989 by the Musée du Québec for $28,000; in June 2000, we sold Migrants VI, 1998, a bronze by René Derouin, of which 8 were produced, measuring 15 x 18 x 11 cm, for $5,000; and finally, in June 2000, we sold Couple en déséquilibre, 2000, a bronze by Roseline Granet, of which 8 were produced, measuring 50 x 25 x 20 cm, for $7,500.
What this shows is that sculptures by well-known artists from Quebec and elsewhere, from the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, or even very recent ones, command prices ranging from $5,000 for the smallest and most recent to $16,500 and even $28,000 for the earliest. Riopelle bronzes from the 1970s generally fetch $35,000 to $50,000. This beautiful ceramic by Louis Archambault is quite large (58 cm tall) and is part of this major Quebec artist's most significant production in the early 1950s. Because there remains very few examples of this production, and because this piece is particularly beautiful and unusual, I believe that its original appraisal at $8,000 is more than conservative given the prices fetched by sculptures by artists of equivalent reputation.
Signed in Montreal by Simon Blais on November 1, 2000.
[14] It would have been of much more assistance to me (and, I should think, to the appellant) if Mr. Devlin and Mr. Blais had testified. As it is I have only the reports to look to for substantiation of the conclusion that the sculpture was worth $8,000.
[15] Valuing a work of art is difficult. It is not like valuing a piece of commercial property, or a house, or shares in a corporation. Well-defined criteria for such valuations are more readily available. In valuing a work of art there are many variables and subjective elements that can result in differences in estimates of value that may vary within a range of indeterminate magnitude.
[16] The Crown's expert, Ms. Millar, whose expertise, qualifications and experience were impressive, set out the following factors that should be taken into account in valuing a work of art:
13. In establishing a value for a work of art, a number of components must be taken into consideration. In general these include:
- artist's education, exhibition record and reputation,
- sales records (primary market),
- auction records (secondary market),
- specific market demand,
- provenance of the work and its earlier sale history,
- the medium, size, production date, quality and subject matter of the work,
- comparable prices with similar work by the same artist,
- comparable prices with similar work by other artists with similar experience
- comparable prices with work done under similar circumstances
It will be obvious from reading this list that there is considerable flexibility in the weight that valuators can put on each of these factors.
[17] Ms. Millar's expert report is a thorough and careful analysis of the problem of determining for Canadian tax purposes the value of works of art that are donated to art galleries. Although all of her observations probably merit reproduction I shall set out one paragraph in particular with which I am in complete agreement.
19. Therefore, in my opinion, the best evidence of true "fair market value" is the price the donor paid for the work in conjunction with a certain appreciation factor depending on the fluctuation of the open market. This removes the problem of "artificially inflated evaluations" that are in excess of the price at which the work was actually bought. The only way an elevated price can be justified following a "bargain purchase" is if at the same time of the donation, a similar work is sold by an established gallery/dealer (or other appropriate market including auction) at the established higher price and reliable invoices made available.
[18] The problem here is that despite Mr. Archambault's stellar reputation we have no recent sales of similar ceramic sculpture done by him that would justify the $8,000 figure contended for by the appellant. Indeed, considering how prolific he was in different media, we have relatively few comparable sales by him in any media and in particular of ceramic sculpture. Indeed in recent years, according to Ms. Millar, only two ceramic pieces by Louis Archambault have come up for auction, Head (the sculpture in question here) and Yellow Bird, a glazed ceramic platter which sold in 2000 at Ritchies in Toronto for $575.
[19] There are several considerations raised by Ms. Millar that should be mentioned. The first is the distinction that she draws between a decorative craft piece and a sculptural piece. She says Head is in the former category and Joe Fafard's and Vic Cicansky's works are in the latter. I find the distinction somewhat subtle and I am not convinced that it is a meaningful one in the context of the business of valuing art. The characterization of one piece of art as "sculpture" and another as "decorative craft" is both difficult and subjective. It is a judgment call on which experts are unlikely to agree. The somewhat nebulous nature of the distinction makes it an unreliable basis upon which to determine value.
[20] The second consideration has to do with the artist's reputation. Louis Archambault's reputation was outstanding, but this does not appear to have had a significant influence on the price paid for his works. An artist's reputation may in some circumstances be reflected in the price paid for that artist's work - for example Van Gogh or Picasso - but this is not necessarily so in all cases. It would in my view be necessary for anyone seeking to attribute an enhanced value to a work of art to demonstrate clearly how the artist's reputation has enhanced the fmv of his or her work.
[21] Finally, Ms. Millar states that the artistic merit of a piece of art is a factor in determining value. I neither accept nor reject this proposition. I say merely that it requires further examination and I do not base my decision on it. Defining and recognizing artistic merit is almost as difficult as defining art itself. No doubt art experts and artists are in a better position than a court would be to determine whether a work of art has artistic merit. Nonetheless, it is an elusive and indefinable concept and it is unquestionably highly subjective. I would be reluctant to base any determination of value upon the view of an art expert - however distinguished - that a work of art had artistic merit.
[22] On the question therefore of artistic merit, I accept Ms. Millar's view (and obviously, the Board's and Mr. Maréchal's) that Head has artistic merit. I accept as well that the determination of artistic merit is not necessarily in all cases a purely subjective or relativistic one. Obviously, there are objective criteria that can be applied. Rembrandt's works have by all objective standards artistic and aesthetic merit. No doubt the fact that objectively his works have artistic merit as well as the fact they are by Rembrandt justifies, at least in part, the high prices. However, we are not trying to value a Rembrandt here. I am merely indicating that caution should be used in treating the subjective judgement on the presence or absence of artistic merit as a factor in determining the fmv of a work of art.
[23] Ms. Millar starts from the price paid by the appellant for the sculpture in 1999 (which is either $1,300 or $1,719 depending upon whether one adds the taxes and commission) and adds what she describes as a "fluctuation factor of the open market" to arrive at a value of $3,500. Such an adjustment may be seen as arbitrary and I daresay it is in some measure. One cannot entirely escape an element of arbitrariness in valuing artistic works. Nonetheless, what one person may call arbitrariness, someone else may call informed discretion and someone else may call judgement based on experience. It depends on who is making the call.
[24] Ms. Millar, an experienced art expert, has taken the price paid in 1999 and has arrived at a value that is approximately double that a year later. The Board has trebled or quadrupled it and the appraisers Devlin and Blais have quintupled or sextupled the original cost depending upon what figure one starts with. I do not think that the reports of Devlin and Blais contain within themselves the type of evidence that would justify the conclusion that this work of art has appreciated in value by 500 percent. It may be that so dramatic an increase is theoretically possible in extraordinary circumstances but in the real world it seems highly improbable and it has not been established here.
[25] In the result it has not been shown that the value of the sculpture is greater than the figure of $5,000 determined by the Board. The appeal is therefore dismissed.
[26] I have decided to award no costs
against the appellant even though the case was heard under the
General Procedure. I am exercising my discretion in this way for
several reasons. Certainly it is no reflection on the conduct of
counsel for the respondent. Maître Jacquier presented
the respondent's case with her usual skill, thoroughness and
fairness. My reason is that the money involved is relatively
small but the case raised important questions of principle that
went beyond the monetary amounts in issue.
Mr. Maréchal is to be commended for bringing the
matter before the court. He presented his case with great
skill.
Moreover, there is no provision in the Tax Court of Canada
Act for electing the Informal Procedure in appeals from
determinations of value by the Board under the Cultural
Property Export and Import Act. Therefore, the appellant was
required to proceed under the General Procedure notwithstanding
the small amount involved.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 17th day of August 2004.
|
"D.G.H. Bowman" |
Bowman, A.C.J.
Schedule A
|
CITATION: |
2004TCC464 |
|
COURT FILE NO.: |
2001-4224(EXP)G |
|
STYLE OF CAUSE |
Paul Maréchal and Her Majesty The Queen |
|
|
|
|
PLACE OF HEARING: |
Montréal, Quebec |
|
DATE OF HEARING: |
May 20, 2004 |
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: |
The Honourable D.G.H. Bowman, Associate Chief Justice |
|
DATE OF JUDGMENT AND REASONS FOR JUDGMENT: |
August 17, 2004 |
|
APPEARANCES: |
|
For the Appellant: |
The Appellant himself |
|
Counsel for the Respondent: |
Chantal Jacquier |
|
COUNSEL OF RECORD: |
|
For the Appellant: |
|
|
|
|
Name: |
|
|
|
Firm: |
|
|
For the Respondent: |
Morris Rosenberg Deputy Attorney General of Canada Ottawa, Canada |