http://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/fca-caf/decisions/en/item/119869/index.do
Hayfron-Benjamin v. Canada (September 16, 2015 – 2015 FCA 196, Dawson, Ryer (author), Near JJ. A.).
Précis: This decision was an appeal from a decision of the Tax Court which dismissed Mr. Hayfron-Benjamin’s appeal. He was assessed a 10% penalty for unreported income from three different employers in the 2008, 2009 and 2010 taxation years (the employers had all withheld and remitted the applicable tax). He maintained that he had not been employed by any of these employers. The Tax Court did not accept his evidence.
The Federal Court of Appeal held that there was evidence before the Tax Court to permit it to conclude that Mr. Hayfron-Benjamin was employed by these employers in the years under appeal. Accordingly his appeal was dismissed with costs.
Decision: This was a simple case of the Court of Appeal concluding that the evidence before the Tax Court justified its findings of fact:
[6] In dismissing the Taxpayer’s appeals and upholding the reassessments for 2008, 2009 and 2010, the Tax Court Judge found that the evidence before him established that the Taxpayer had worked for, and received payments from, the three companies that had issued the T-4s to him. In addition, the Tax Court Judge concluded that he was unable to accept, as credible, the Taxpayer’s testimony that he had never worked for, or received payments from, the three companies that issued the T4s to him and that he had been the subject of identity theft.
[7] In this appeal, the Taxpayer disputes these factual findings made by the Tax Court Judge. To succeed, the Taxpayer must demonstrate that the Tax Court Judge made a palpable and overriding error in making such findings (see Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235, at paragraph 25).
[8] In our view, the evidence before the Tax Court Judge was sufficient to enable him to make the factual findings that are challenged by the Taxpayer. Accordingly, we are of the view that the Tax Court Judge made no palpable and overriding error in making those findings.
As a result the appeal was dismissed with costs.