http://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/fca-caf/decisions/en/item/68566/index.do 
Congiu v. Canada (March 19, 2014 – 2014 FCA 73, Blais CJ (Author), Gauthier, Mainville JJA).
Précis: This was an appeal from a decision of Angers J. of the Tax Court. It concerned liability for unremitted GST arising out of a bankruptcy proceeding. The appellants had been unsuccessful in an appeal before the Court of Quebec arising out of the same set of facts. He held that the principle of judicial comity allowed him to dismiss the appeals. The taxpayers appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal which held that Angers J. had been correct in his application of the principle of judicial comity. Moreover since the date of the Tax Court decision the taxpayers had appealed the Court of Quebec decision to the Quebec Court of Appeal which upheld the original decision thus making it very difficult for the taxpayers to argue that the original decision was wrong in law.
Decision: The Court of Appeal held that Angers J. was correct in applying the principle of judicial comity, particularly where the original decision had been confirmed by the Quebec Court of Appeal.
[3] Essentially, Justice Angers cited an earlier decision of the Court of Quebec regarding the appellants. In that decision, the Court of Quebec had disposed of similar issues to the issues at bar, under Quebec tax legislation.
[4] After clarifying that he was not bound by the decision of the Court of Quebec, the judge held that, since no additional evidence had been filed in support of the appellants’ arguments, it was preferable to avoid a relitigation of the claims; he further held that the principle of judicial comity had to be applied to the decision of the Court of Quebec and that the appeals had to be dismissed.
[5] Justice Angers thoroughly examined the facts of record and concluded that there was no identity of cause since the amounts of the assessments and the legal basis of the assessments were different and, moreover, that there was no identity of parties [translation] “because the federal and Quebec governments are not the same person” (paragraph 8 of the decision).
[6] However, he carefully reviewed the state of the law on abuse of process and judicial comity. He also noted that the appellants did not submit any different evidence from that submitted in the Court of Quebec. He added that the agreed statement of facts filed in the Tax Court of Canada was based on the findings of fact of the judge of the Court of Quebec (paragraph 12 of the decision).
[7] In my opinion, Justice Anger’s decision to apply the principles of judicial comity was entirely warranted in the particular circumstances of this case.
[8] Moreover, on February 7, the Quebec Court of Appeal rendered a decision in which it unanimously dismissed the appeal from the decision of the Court of Quebec. This recent decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal, which deserves examination, makes it considerably difficult for the appellants’ chances to argue that the decision of Justice Lareau of the Court of Quebec was not correct in law. This decision is cited as 2014 QCCA 242.
As a result the appeal was dismissed with costs (on appeal only).
TAGS: Excise Tax Act, GST Litigation, Judicial Comity