Federal Court of Appeal Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

Date: 20010605

Docket: A-284-98

                                                                                                                                               

                                                                                                Neutral citation: 2001 FCA 190

CORAM:        LINDEN J.A.

ISAAC J.A.

MALONE J.A.                                    

BETWEEN:

                                               

JAG D. BHADURIA

                                                                                                                                  Appellant

                                                                       

                                                                   - and -                               

                                                                       

                                                                                                                                               

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

                                                                                                                              Respondent

                                                                                                                                               

Heard at Toronto, Ontario, Monday, June 4, 2001

Judgment delivered from the Bench at Toronto,

Ontario, on Monday, June 4, 2001

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY:                                MALONE J.A.


                                                                       

Date: 20010605

Docket: A-284-98

                                                            Neutral citation: 2001 FCA 190

CORAM:        LINDEN J.A.

ISAAC J.A.

MALONE J.A.                              

BETWEEN:

                             

JAG D. BHADURIA

                                                                                              Appellant

                                                     

                                                 - and -                         

                                                     

                                                                                                                 

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

                                                                                          Respondent

                                                                                                           

             REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

                   (Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario

                                  on Monday, June 4, 2001)

MALONE J.A.

We have not been persuaded that the Tax Court Judge committed any reviewable errors that warrant our interfering with his decision.


The Tax Court Judge heard the appellant's oral evidence but was not satisfied that his accounting records and the receipts he provided were reasonable evidence of valid expenses in respect of his rental business. As to credibility, he found:

The appellant is very quick to answer questions. The appellant's stories changed slightly from in-chief to cross-examination back to in-chief to an extent that it cannot be relied upon in total at face value.

The role of this Court is not to retry the case, reassess the weight of evidence or re-determine the credibility of witnesses. Rather, our role is to decide whether there is evidence which, if believed by the Tax Court Judge, would support the conclusions he reached regardless of the apparent weight of conflicting evidence. (Hillsdale Shopping Centre v. MNR 81 DTC 5261). In our analysis, in this case, the appellant was simply unable to meet the evidentiary burden of proof which the law placed upon him.

We would dismiss the appeal without costs.

        "B. Malone"

                                                                                                      J.A.                          


                                                           FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

                  Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record

DOCKET:                                            A-284-98

STYLE OF CAUSE:                             JAG D. BHADURIA

                                                                                              Appellant

- and -                          

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

                                                                                          Respondent

                                                                                                           

DATE OF HEARING:              MONDAY, JUNE 4, 2001

PLACE OF HEARING:                        TORONTO, ONTARIO

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

OF THE COURT BY:              MALONE J.A.

DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH AT TORONTO, ONTARIO ON MONDAY, JUNE 4, 2001.

APPEARANCES BY:                         Mr. Jag Bhaduria

For the Appellant, on his own behalf

Mr. Franco Calabrese

For the Respondent

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:           Jag Bhaduria

4 Westmoreland Court

Markham, Ontario

L3R 8L9

For the Appellant, on his own behalf

Morris Rosenberg

Deputy Attorney General of Canada     

For the Respondent


FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

Date: 20010604

Docket: A-284-98

BETWEEN:

JAG D. BHADURIA

                                                                                              Appellant

                                                     

- and -                        

                                                     

                                                                                                                       

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

                                                                                          Respondent

                                                                                                           

                                                                      

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

OF THE COURT

                                                                     

 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.