Federal Court of Appeal Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

                                                                                                                                            Date: 20030107

                                                                                                                                        Docket: A-796-00

                                                                                                                    Neutral citation: 2003 FCA 2

CORAM:        STRAYER J.A.

BETWEEN:

                                                        HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

                                                                                                                                                       Appellant

                                                                                 and

                                                           LESLIE ANN RUTLEDGE

                                                                                                                                                   Respondent

                                                            REASONS FOR ORDER

STRAYER J.A.

[1]                 This is an application by the respondent to dismiss the appeal for mootness. The main argument made by the respondent is that the original tax liability of the respondent for property received from her husband without consideration is moot because the appellant has now admitted that there is no longer any tax liability of her husband in respect of the taxation year in which the property was transferred to her nor in respect of preceding taxation years.


[2]                 The substance of the appeal to this Court, however, is as to the powers of the Tax Court to reinstate an appeal in that Court, as it did here, after the taxpayer had withdrawn her appeal. That question is not moot. Further I am not satisfied from the language of the Income Tax Act that the respondent's tax liability can necessarily be assumed to have been extinguished. That may well be the effect of section 160 of the Income Tax Act but I believe it is a matter upon which argument should be heard, presumably in the first instance by the Tax Court if the appeal was properly reinstated.

[3]                 The motion to quash the appeal will therefore be dismissed, with costs in the cause.

    

                                                                                                                                           (s) "B.L.Strayer"          

J.A.


                                                    FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

                              NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

    

DOCKET:                                             A-796-00

  

STYLE OF CAUSE:                           HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN v. LESLIE ANN RUTLEDGE

MOTION DEALT WITH IN WRITING WITHOUT APPEARANCE OF PARTIES

REASONS FOR ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE STRAYER

  

DATED:                                                January 7, 2003

   

WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY:

Linda L. Bell                                                                                    FOR THE APPELLANT

Thomas M. Boddez                                                                        FOR THE RESPONDENT

  

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

  

Morris A. Rosenberg                                                                      FOR THE APPELLANT

Deputy Attorney General of Canada

Vancouver, British Columbia

Thorsteinssons                                                                               FOR THE RESPONDENT

Tax Lawyers

Vancouver, British Columbia

 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.