Federal Court of Appeal Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

Date: 20030401

                                                                                                                                         Docket: A-660-01

Neutral Citation: 2003 FCA 170

CORAM:        LÉTOURNEAU J.A.

NADON J.A.

PELLETIER J.A.

BETWEEN:

JACKY OUAKNINE

Appellant

and

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

Respondent

Hearing held at Montréal, Quebec, March 31, 2003.

Judgment delivered at Montréal, Quebec, April 1, 2003.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT:                                                                               LÉTOURNEAU J.A.

CONCURRING:                                                                                                                    NADON J.A.

                                                                                                                                           PELLETIER J.A.


Date: 20030401

                                                                                                                                         Docket: A-660-01

Neutral Citation: 2003 FCA 170

CORAM:        LÉTOURNEAU J.A.

NADON J.A.

PELLETIER J.A.

BETWEEN:

JACKY OUAKNINE

Appellant

and

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

LÉTOURNEAU J.A.

[1]         The appellant had the burden of demonstrating to Judge Tardif of the Tax Court of Canada that the facts and assumptions in support of the assessment by the Minister of Revenue of Quebec for the goods and services tax were erroneous. He was not able to prove that the figures established by the Revenu Québec auditor, using the reconstitution of sales method, did not represent the figures for clothing sales actually made at his four shops.


[2]         Furthermore, the judge, with irreproachable reasons in support, did not believe the explanations of the appellant and his accountant in regard to such things as the appellant's lack of books of account, sales invoices, register tapes, cash sales and even sales for some months at his Galeries Lachute store.

[3]         It is not our job, as the appellant is effectively asking us to do, to substitute our assessment of the evidence for that of the trial judge, who had the benefit of seeing and hearing the witnesses called by both sides. There is nothing in the judge's reasons, legally or factually, that would warrant intervention by us.

[4]         The appeal will be dismissed with costs.

                       "Gilles Létourneau"

line

                                   J.A.

"I concur."

"Marc Nadon J.A."

"I concur."

"J.D. Denis Pelletier J.A."

Certified true translation

Suzanne Gauthier, C. Tr., LL.L.


             FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

APPEAL DIVISION

Date: 20030401

                                                           Docket: A-660-01

Between:

JACKY OUAKNINE

Appellant

and

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

Respondent

line

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

line


FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

APPEAL DIVISION

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                                 A-660-01

STYLE:                                     

JACKY OUAKNINE

Appellant

and

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

Respondent

PLACE OF HEARING:                      Montréal, Quebec

DATE OF HEARING:                         March 31, 2003

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT:       LÉTOURNEAU J.A.

CONCURRING:                                 NADON J.A.

PELLETIER J.A.

DATED:                                                 April 1, 2003

APPEARANCES:

Jacky Ouaknine                                                                              FOR THE APPELLANT

Montréal, Quebec                                                                          (himself)

Pierre Séguin                                                                                   FOR THE RESPONDENT

Montréal, Quebec

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Veillette & Associés                                                                        FOR THE RESPONDENT

Contentieux Ministère du Revenu du Québec

Montréal, Quebec

 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.