http://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/fca-caf/decisions/en/item/110105/index.do
Watts v Canada (June 3, 2015 – 2015 FCA 138, Trudel, Ryer (author), Rennie JJA).
Précis: The taxpayer filed a Notice of Appeal dated January 9, 2012 of his 2007 taxation year. The matter was heard before Campbell J. of the Tax Court who struck the appeal. He next appealed to Justice Paris of the Tax Court who dismissed his application to set aside the decision of Justice Campbell on the basis the she had determined the claim on the merits and Mr. Watts’ only recourse was to the Federal Court of Appeal. Mr. Watts then filed another appeal of his 2007 taxation year (Notice of Appeal dated December 9, 2013); the Notice of Appeal also dealt with his 2009 and 2010 taxation years. Rossiter CJ struck that portion of the Notice of Appeal dealing with his 2007 taxation year on the basis of
res judicata. Mr. Watts appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal which dismissed the appeal from the bench with all inclusive costs of $1,000.
Decision: The Court of Appeal made short work of Mr. Watts’ appeal:
[5] The oral reasons of the Chief Justice demonstrate his conclusion that the order of Justice Campbell was a final determination with respect to the validity of the 2007 Reassessment, pursuant to which the Minister imposed a liability under the Income Tax Act upon Mr. Watts. This conclusion led him to find that Mr. Watts was precluded from relitigating the validity of the 2007 Reassessment by virtue of the principle of res judicata.
[6] We have not been persuaded that in granting the Crown’s motion to strike out the portion of Mr. Watts’ Notice of Appeal that relates to the 2007 Reassessment, the Chief Justice made any reviewable error of law or fact that would warrant our intervention.
[7] Mr. Watts has requested this Court to grant him an extension of time to file an amendment to his Notice of Appeal with respect to the 2009 and 2010 Reassessments, as permitted by the order of the Chief Justice. This relief is within the purview of the Tax Court of Canada and should be requested from that Court.
[8] For the foregoing reasons, we would dismiss the appeal, with all inclusive costs in the amount of $1,000.