http://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/site/fca-caf/decisions/en/item/63192/index.do 
Deep v. Canada Revenue Agency (formerly Canada Customs and Revenue Agency) and Her Majesty the Queen[1] (September 30, 2013) is probably the end of a very long legal saga.[2] The appellant, Dr. Deep, fought income tax assessments for his 1994 to 1997 taxation years largely unsuccessfully in the Tax Court, largely unsuccessfully in the Federal Court of Appeal and was denied leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada:
http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/site/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/26309/index.do
http://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/site/fca-caf/decisions/en/item/35777/index.do
He also sued CRA unsuccessfully in the Ontario Superior Court and was unsuccessful appealing that decision to the Ontario Court of Appeal:
[1] The appellant candidly acknowledges that his action is an attack on the decision of the tax court. He was unsuccessful in that court and has exhausted his right to appeal that decision. He is not entitled to once again attack it in the Ontario Superior Court. We agree with Justice Belobaba.
[2] The appeal is dismissed.
He instituted a similar action against CRA in the Federal Court which was also dismissed as a collateral attack on the Tax Court proceedings:
http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/site/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/62040/index.do
This is his appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal from that most recent decision.
The court held that his pleadings disclosed nothing that had not been (or could not have been) raised in his action in the Ontario Superior Court:
Dr. Deep cannot succeed in an action for damages against the Crown in the Federal Court based substantially on the same allegations he made or could have made in his action in the Ontario Superior Court.
[6] Although Dr. Deep’s statement of claim in the Federal Court is said to be based on newly discovered evidence, the statement of claim does not specify what the new evidence is or the basis upon which it is said to be newly discovered. The allegations specifically against officials of the Canada Revenue Agency essentially are recitations of what Dr. Deep believes to be factual misstatements and auditing errors. All of the impugned statements deal with matters that could and should have been litigated in the Tax Court. Even if the Canada Revenue Agency auditor misunderstood some facts that were relevant to the correctness of the tax assessments, the onus was on Dr. Deep to establish the actual facts by evidence in the Tax Court. Any attempt to raise these errors as the foundation of a claim for damages against the Crown in issuing tax assessments to Dr. Deep must fail as a collateral attack on the assessments.
[7] Dr. Deep characterizes the alleged errors of the Canada Revenue Agency officials as malicious, negligent, and reckless. However, those are merely bald allegations. They are supported by no factual allegations that are capable of establishing an improper motive on the part of any officials of the Canada Revenue Agency.
[8] Dr. Deep’s statement of claim refers as well to losses he suffered from costly disputes between Dr. Deep and other parties, including the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario and the Bank of Montreal, and significant investment losses suffered by Dr. Deep. However, Dr. Deep alleges no facts from which a court might reasonably infer that those events are relevant to the conduct of the audit by the Canada Revenue Agency or the issuance of the tax assessments that are the subject of his Federal Court action against the Crown.
The only unusual aspect of this decision is that it seems to imply that if Dr. Deep had pleaded properly he might have been able to maintain his new action in the Federal Court. Based on the record while such a scenario might be possible it seems unlikely in the extreme.
[1] 2013 FCA 228.
[2] There may well be an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. Dr. Deep made three previous unsuccessful leave applications in various proceedings.