JOYCE LIND Applicant v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, 2003 FCA 161

Date: 20030325 Docket: A-725-01 Neutral citation: 2003 FCA 161 CORAM: DÉCARY J.A. NOËL J.A. SHARLOW J.A. BETWEEN: JOYCE LIND Applicant and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent Heard at Vancouver, British Columbia on March 25, 2003. Judgment delivered at Vancouver, British Columbia on March 25, 2003. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: SHARLOW J.A. CONCURRED IN BY: CONCURRING REASONS BY: CONCURRING REASONS IN RESULT ONLY BY: DISSENTING REASONS BY: Date: 20030325 Docket: A-725-01 Neutral citation: 2003 FCA 161 CORAM: DÉCARY J.A. NOËL J.A. SHARLOW J.A.

BETWEEN: JOYCE LIND Applicant and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT SHARLOW J.A. [ 1 ] This is an application for judicial review of a judgment of the Tax Court in an informal proceeding, upholding an assessment of goods and services tax (GST) under the Excise Tax Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. E-15 in relation to applicant's purchase of a condominium unit. The decision is reported as Lind v. Canada , [2001] G.S.T.C. 136 (T.C.C.). [ 2 ] Ms. Lind challenges the Tax Court decision on factual and legal grounds, and also argues that she was denied a fair hearing because of the conduct of the Crown.

[ 3 ] It is not necessary to outline Ms. Lind's specific complaints about the factual conclusions of the Tax Court Judge. In an application for judicial review, this Court must defer to the Tax Court on factual questions unless the record discloses an erroneous finding of fact made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard to the material before it ( paragraph 18(4) (

d) of the Federal Court Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7 ). No such error is made out in this case, except for the finding that Ms. McKenzie was not an officer of a certain corporation. The evidence was that he was an officer. However, we are of the view that this error is immaterial in the circumstances. [ 4 ] Ms. Lind also argues that the Tax Court Judge misinterpreted a key statutory provision, which was the definition of "builder" in subsection 123(1) of the Excise Tax Act .

We are all of the view that the Tax Court Judge interpreted that definition correctly, so that the question to be determined was whether, at the relevant time, Mr. McKenzie was occupying the unit as a place of residence or lodging. We do not interpret the definition as requiring an inquiry into whether or not someone was occupying any other part of the condominium complex as a place of residence or lodging at the relevant time. [ 5 ] Finally, Ms.

Lind argues that prior to the Tax Court hearing, Crown counsel had consistently provided her with an incorrect version of the relevant statutory definition, and as a result she was deprived of an opportunity to have a fair trial. She says in particular that she was deprived of an opportunity to present evidence as to the date upon which any part of the condominium complex was occupied. This argument must fail because, as indicated above, the question upon which Ms. Lind would have liked to provide evidence is not legally relevant. [ 6 ] Ms.

Lind also asserts that because of the confusion prior to the Tax Court proceedings about the relevant definition, which she says was caused by "negligent misrepresentation" on the part of Crown counsel, she is entitled to relief. She says that the appropriate relief is a refund of the GST, interest and costs. We are unable to agree with Ms. Lind on this point. The object of these proceedings is to determine whether, as a matter of law, Ms. Lind was liable for the GST assessed. The fact that Ms.

Lind misunderstood the law, even if that misunderstanding was caused by some conduct on the part of Crown counsel, cannot change her legal obligation to pay the GST. Nor can it provide any basis for this Court to relieve her of the legal obligation to pay the GST. [ 7 ] This application for judicial review will be dismissed with costs. (Sgd.) "Karen R. Sharlow" J.A. FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-725-01 STYLE OF CAUSE: Joyce Lind v. Her Majesty The Queen PLACE OF HEARING: Vancouver DATE OF HEARING: March 25, 2003 REASONS FOR Judgment : SHARLOW J.A.

CONCURRED IN BY: DATED: March 25, 2003 APPEARANCES : Ms. Joyce Lind FOR THE APPLICANT Ms. Patricia Babcock FOR THE RESPONDENT Ms. Nadine Taylor Pickering SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Ms. Joyce Lind FOR THE APPLICANT (appearing on her own behalf) Mr. Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT Deputy Attorney General of Canada