Date: 20010219
Docket: A-402-00
Citation: 2001 FCA 15
| CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A. |
| DÉCARY J.A. |
| LÉTOURNEAU J.A. |
BETWEEN:
A-402-00
MUKESH MIRCHANDANI
Applicant
- and -
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
A-399-00
ROUMEN MILEV
Applicant
- and -
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
A-400-00
HUSSAM BAWA
Applicant
- and -
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
A-407-00
EUGENE MARCOUX
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE
Respondent
A-411-00
EUGENE MARCOUX
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE
Respondent
Heard at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, on Monday, February 12, 2001.
Rendered from the bench at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, on Monday, February 12, 2001.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
OF THE COURT: DESJARDINS J.A.
Date: 20010219
Docket: A-402-00
Citation: 2001 FCA 15
| CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A. |
| DÉCARY J.A. |
| LÉTOURNEAU J.A. |
BETWEEN:
A-402-00
MUKESH MIRCHANDANI
Applicant
- and -
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
A-399-00
ROUMEN MILEV
Applicant
- and -
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
A-400-00
HUSSAM BAWA
Applicant
- and -
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
A-407-00
EUGENE MARCOUX
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE
Respondent
A-411-00
EUGENE MARCOUX
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the bench on Monday, February 12, 2001)
DESJARDINS J.A.
[1] We feel that this application for judicial review of a decision of Beaubier J. of the Tax Court of Canada must succeed.
[2] We find that Beaubier J.T.C.C., at pages 15 and 16 of his reasons, quoted from Wiebe Door Services Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue (87 D.T.C. 5025 at 5027) a statement from the Tax Court judge with respect to the integration test which was later rejected by McGuigan J.A. on behalf of the Federal Court of Appeal.
[3] We are, therefore, not satisfied that Beaubier J.T.C.C. properly directed himself in the law. There is clear evidence of this error of law at page 16 of his reasons when he stated:
| [...] Without the psychiatrists, the District clinic could not offer psychiatric services in the premises. |
[4] We are also comforted in this view by his reference, in paragraph 8 of his decision, to the objective perception of a patient or the public as a means of determining the legal nature of the relationship between psychiatrists and the Board for whom they were performing services. This is an irrelevant consideration that he took into account and we are not sure that it did not affect or colour his decision.
[5] For these reasons, the application for judicial review will be allowed with costs, the decision of the Tax Court judge will be set aside and the matter will be referred back to the Tax Court of Canada for a redetermination by a different judge on the basis of the record as constituted and any other evidence that the parties may wish to tender.
"Alice Desjardins"
J.A.