http://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/fca-caf/decisions/en/item/71689/index.do 
St-Denis v. Canada (May 14, 2014 – 2014 FCA 127, Nöel (Author), Mainville, Scott JJA) (Translation dated March 26, 2015).
Précis: On December 14, 2007 a property known as 396 Ellice Street was transferred to the appellant’s mother, Ms. Cousineau, by a third party. On January 22, 2008, at a time when she owed substantial arrears in GST, Ms. Cousineau transferred the property to the appellant. On March 12, 2008 the appellant was assessed pursuant to section 325 of Part IX of the
Excise Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-15 (the ETA), in the amount of $55,754.10. On April 22, 2008 a notarial deed of correction was executed which purported to correct the original purchaser in the December 14, 2007 transaction, replacing Ms. Cousineau with the appellant. In the Tax Court Chief Justice Rip did not accept the appellant’s evidence that the 2007 deed incorrectly identified his mother as purchaser. The Federal Court of Appeal found that Chief Justice Rip’s finding of fact was supported by the evidence and dismissed the appeal with costs.
Decision: On January 22, 2008, at a time when she owed substantial arrears in GST, the appellant’s mother, Ms. Cousineau, transferred a property known as 396 Ellice Street to him. He was assessed on March 12, 2008 under section 325 of the ETA (the equivalent of section 160 of the
Income Tax Act) in the amount of $55,754.10. The appellant’s case rested on a notarial deed of correction executed April 22, 2008 which purported to show that he had always been intended to be the purchaser of the property:
[5] The appellant’s position rests on his assertion that the deed of assignment dated January 22, 2008, on which the assessment is based, did not give rise to a transfer of property. This argument is based in turn on the alleged fact that the sale of 396 Ellice Street to Ms. Cousineau on December 14, 2007, was the result of an error, which was purportedly recognized by a notarial act signed on April 22, 2008. By that act, the parties recognized that it was the appellant, not his mother, who became the owner of 396 Ellice Street pursuant to the transaction dated December 14, 2007. The TCC judge nonetheless concluded, with reasons in support, that the existence of an error regarding the identity of the purchaser had not been proved.
The Court of Appeal concluded that there were no serious grounds to question the Tax Court’s decision that the appellant had failed to show he was intended to be the original purchaser of the property:
[11] The issue of whether or not an error regarding the identity of the purchaser was made is a question of fact, such that the finding made by the TCC judge cannot be revisited, absent a palpable and overriding error. No serious challenge was mounted against any of the grounds relied upon by the TCC judge to support his finding.
[12] Counsel for the appellant emphasized the fact that the TCC judge had failed to consider the promise to purchase that named his client as the purchaser. It is true that the appellant is named as the purchaser of one of the immovable properties that was sold at the same time as 396 Ellice Street, but the identity of the prospective purchaser of 396 Ellice Street was not clearly established by the documentary evidence filed.
[13] In the same vein, counsel put forward an economic argument according to which his client, having purchased one of the other immovable properties sold at the same time, must logically have become the owner of 396 Ellice Street.
[14] As the TCC judge stated at paragraph 30 of his reasons, this argument would have been convincing if the appellant had shown that he had provided the funds and/or the necessary financing for these purchases. However, there is no evidence whatsoever in this regard.
[15] It must therefore be concluded that no palpable and overriding error has been proved.
As a result the appeal was dismissed with costs.