Heroux v. Canada (November 4, 2015 – 2015 FCA 240, Webb (author), Scott, Gleason JJ. A.).
Précis: Ms. Heroux appealed a Tax Court decision upholding a subsection 160(1) assessment against her in respect of property transferred to her by her husband. She filed a notice of appeal that simply copied the Federal Court of Appeal form for a notice of appeal and did not set out any specific grounds applicable to her case. The Court of Appeal ordered her to provide specific grounds and she failed to do so. The Crown moved to have the appeal dismissed.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal in writing, with costs.
Decision: This was a rather odd transferee liability case under subsection 160(1). One of the points Ms. Heroux argued was that she was a resident of Manitoba but not of Canada. The Court of Appeal made short work of the matter:
 The Appellant has simply reiterated the only grounds that are available for an appeal, not the grounds that she would intend to argue. There is nothing in this “motion” to indicate why the Appellant believes that any of the permitted grounds for an appeal from a decision rendered under the informal procedure would be applicable in this case.
 In another document that was included by the Appellant in her booklet submitted on September 11, 2015, the Appellant indicates that she “will be relying on the following 7 points as to why the Income Tax Act 5th Supplement does not, and cannot, apply to me, as it is written, and further, as you are aware, there is no requirement for me to file according to 150(1.1)(b)”. The seven points that follow appear to all be in relation to the Appellant’s argument that she is not a resident of Canada or that she does not have any taxable income. There is no reference to her spouse, Glen Heroux, in any of these seven points.
 None of her “points” address section 160 of the Act. Under section 160 of the Act, the relevant tax liability is not her tax liability but rather the tax liability of another person, in this case, Glen Heroux. As well, there is no requirement in section 160 of the Act that the transferee (referred to above) must be a resident of Canada. The Appellant has not indicated why she has not “resided on any Canada Lands” or why this would be relevant for the purposes of section 160 of the Act.
 The remaining documents are copies of correspondence and other documents that do not provide any insight into why any of the permitted grounds of appeal would be applicable in this case.
The Court dismissed the appeal in writing, with costs.