http://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/fca-caf/decisions/en/item/109124/index.do 
MacKay v. Canada (April 15, 2015 – 2015 FCA 94, Ryer (author), Near, Rennie JJA).
Précis: This was an appeal by Dr. MacKay, a dentist with a January 31 year end. Because of the operation of sections 9 and 34.1 of the Income Tax Act he was required in 2006 to terminate a previously available deferral stemming from this non-calendar year end. He was unsuccessful in the Tax Court and appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal. In the Court of Appeal he essentially argued that section 34.1 was unfair (the same argument he had raised in the Tax Court). The Court of Appeal held that it had no jurisdiction to change the legislation and dismissed the appeal from the bench, without costs.
Decision: The decision of the Federal Court of Appeal was terse and pithy:
[2] This appeal is unusual in that the appellant does not argue that the amounts of tax, interest and penalties assessed against him for 2006 are incorrect. Rather, he argues that the amounts assessed as a result of the application of the formula in section 34.1 of the Income Tax Act are unfair and unjustified. In essence he argues that the formula in that provision of the Act ought to be changed. Unfortunately this Court has no power to amend legislation.
[3] In
Chaya v. the Queen, 2004 FCA 327, at paragraph 4, Justice Rothstein, when he was a member of this Court, stated:
[4] …The Court must take the statute as it finds it. It is not open to the Court to make exceptions to statutory provisions on the grounds of fairness or equity. If the applicant considers the law unfair, his remedy is with Parliament, not with the Court.
[4] Since we have not been shown that the Tax Court Judge made any error that warrants our intervention this appeal will be dismissed, without costs.