Wood v. Minister of National Revenue

The applicant was assessed for income tax in on being the amount of a discount he collected on a mortgage at maturity. The Tax Appeal Board and the Exchequer Court upheld the assessment, but the two tribunals did not agree as to the basis on which the $700 should be considered as income. The applicant filed an appeal to this Court although the amount in controversy, the tax on $700, was less than $500. The Minister did not object. Subsequently, the applicant gave notice than an application for leave to appeal would be made when the appeal came on for hearing. The application for leave was argued in Chambers before the hearing of the appeal and was opposed by the Minister.

Held: Leave to appeal should be granted.

In view of the importance of the question of law involved, it was desirable that it should be reviewed by this Court.

Although this Court sometimes under special circumstances gives leave to appeal at the time an appeal is heard, it is very inconvenient and highly undesirable that applications for leave should be made at such a late date. Also, when a case is inscribed without jurisdiction, it is the duty of the respondent to move to quash if the appellant does not move for special leave. No costs allowed to either party on the application.

Appel-Juridiction-Requdte pour permission d'appeler-Doit dtre prdsentie promptement-L'intimd a le devoir de demander le rejet de l'appel si une requite pour permission d'appeler n'est pas prgsentie- Ddpens refusis-Loi sur la Cour de l'Echiquier, S.R.C. 1952, c. 98, art. 82, 88.

Revenu-Imp6t sur le revenu-Revenu ou gain en capital-Hypothbque acquise & escompte-Le montant de l'escompte pergu d l'ichgance est-il un revenu-Loi de l'imp6t sur le revenu, S.R.C. 1952, c. 48, art. 8.

Pigeon J. in Chambers.

S.C.R..

[19681 COUR SUPRtME DU CANADA

Le Ministre a cotis6 le requirant pour imp~t sur le revenu en 1962 sur $700, montant d'un escompte pergu lors de l'6chiance d'une hypo- Woon thique. La Commission d'appel de 'imp8t et la Cour de lIchiquier ont maintenu la cotisation, mais les deux tribunaux n'ont pas 6t6 d'accord quant au motif de consid~rer comme revenu cette somme de $700. Le requ6rant en a appel4 & cette Cour quoique le montant en litige, 1'imp8t sur les $700, fat moins de 8500. Le Ministre n'a pas object6. Subs6quemment, le requ6rant a donn6 avis qu'il pr6senterait une requ8te pour permission d'appeler le jour de l'audition de I'appel. La requite pour permission d'appeler a 6t6 plaid~e en Chambre avant l'audition de l'appel et le Ministre a fait opposition.

Arr~t: La permission d'appeler doit 6tre accord~e.

Vu I'importance de la question de droit qui se pr6sente dans cette cause, il est souhaitable qu'elle soit examin6e par la Cour.

Quoiqu'il arrive que cette Cour, dans des circonstances sp6ciales, donne la permisison d'appeler h l'audition d'un appel, la pr6sentation d'une requte pour permission d'appeler & une date si tardive cause de grands inconv6nients et est h 6viter. De plus, lorsqu'une cause est inscrite sans juridiction, I'intim6 a le devoir de demander le rejet de 1'appel si 1'appelant ne demande pas la permission d'appeler. Les frais de la requite sont refus6s aux deux parties.

REQUPTE pour permission d'appeler d'un jugement du Juge Gibson de la Cour de l'Jchiquier du Canada', en matibre d'imp6t sur le revenu. Requ6te accord6e.

APPLICATION for leave to appeal a judgment of Gibson J. of the Exchequer Court of Canada', in an income tax matter. Application granted.

PIGEON J.:-The appellant is a solicitor who, over a period of years, acquired some 13 mortgages, usually at a substantial discount. He was assessed for income tax in 1962 on $700 being the amount of a discount on one of these mortgages that he collected at maturity in that year. Before the Tax Appeal Board, the assessment was upheld on the finding, not that it was profit from a "business", but that "it was a quasi-bonus" and therefore "interest per se".

1 [19671 1 Ex. C.R. 199, [19671 C.T.C. 66, 67 D.T.C. 5045.

R.C.S.

In the Exchequer Court, Gibson J. did not wish to pass on the soundness of that conclusion and did not choose

(those are his words) to make a finding that this was profit from a "business". He expressly founded his decision in favour of the Minister on the basis that this "was income from a source within the meaning of the opening words of section 3 of the Income Tax Act", adding:

From this judgment, appellant filed an inscription in appeal to this Court as of right without apparently realizing that, due to the rate of tax applicable, the actual amount in controversy was less than $500. Respondent also appears to have overlooked the point and did not move to quash but, on the contrary, signed an agreement as to contents of case and did not object to the appeal being inscribed for hearing at the last term. Being No. 17 on the

Ontario list, the case was not called before the vacation.

In June, however, appellant became aware of the doubtful jurisdiction and, on June 13, gave to respondent a notice of motion supported by affidavit which was filed the following day. This notice was "that an application will be made to this Honourable Court or to a Judge of this Honourable

Court- on the day when this appeal comes on for hearing for leave to appeal to this Honourable Court, if such leave should be necessary, . . ."

Majesty" within the meaning of para. (b) of s. 83 of the

Exchequer Cour Act, R.S.C. 1952, 98, but otherwise he opposes the application.

In view of the importance of the question of law involved in the decision sought to be appealed from, I consider it desirable that it should be reviewed by this Court and accordingly grant leave to appeal.

In doing so, I must point out that, although this Court sometimes under special circumstances gives leave to -appeal