Brydges et al. v. Kinsman et al., (1992) 153 N.R. 158 (FCA)

• Judge: Isaac, C.J., Pratte and Hugessen, JJ.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: November 30, 1992
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1992), 153 N.R. 158 (FCA)

Brydges v. Kinsman (1992), 153 N.R. 158 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

Neil E. Brydges, Mar-Mark Holdings Ltd., Jerome N. Muench, Bernard Lawlor, W. Paul Madge, Thomas L. Hugh, John Stewart Milvey, Francis John Bennett, William Slobodian, William M. Halford, Michael Kubrak, Jerome Fischer, Peter P. Fischer, Gordon J. Bosch, David W. Deane, Patricia M. Deane, Herman G. Doublet, Peter N. Elliott, Reuben W. Fuhr, Charles Roy Guest, Eleanor I. Guest, Harold B. Jacobsen, W. Gerald Kallies, Ronald A. Kuchinka, Richard E. Nichols, Volkmar H. Pohl, John E. Ross, John Tooth, Climax Investments Ltd., Douglas J. Vanderwater and Ernest W. Yaskowich (appellants) v. Jeremy K.B. Kinsman, Minister of Communications and Minister of National Revenue (respondents)

(A-786-90)

Indexed As: Brydges et al. v. Kinsman et al.

Federal Court of Appeal

Isaac, C.J., Pratte and Hugessen, JJ.A.

November 30, 1992.

Summary:

In 1981 the taxpayers invested in a video­tape informational series. Revenue Canada issued an advance ruling that the series qualified as a "Certified Short Production" and was therefore a class 12 depreciable asset under the Income Tax Regulations (i.e., 100% deduction of the capital cost allow­ance in one year). The series was certified as a qualifying production by the Minister of Communications. In 1986, it became appar­ent that the series was not completed. The Minister of National Revenue reassessed, disallowing the class 12 capital cost allow­ance claims. The taxpayers objected. The Assistant Deputy Minister of Cultural Affairs and Broadcasting (Kinsman) notified the taxpayers that their certified short production certificate was revoked. The Minister of National Revenue then confirmed the reassessment. The taxpayers applied under s. 18 of the Federal Court Act for, inter alia, judicial review of the decertification order made by Kinsman.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, in a judgment reported 36 F.T.R. 216, dismissed the s. 18 application on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction in light of s. 29 of the Federal Court Act. The taxpayers appealed.

The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Courts - Topic 4046

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Trial Division - Requirement of lack of other appeals - [See Courts - Topic 4049 ].

Courts - Topic 4049

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Trial Division - Income tax matters - The taxpayers were entitled to a class 12 de­preciation allowance (100%) on a video­tape informational series, because the series was certified by the Minister of Communications as a "Certified Short Production" - The series was not com­pleted - The Minister of National Revenue reassessed, disallowing the class 12 claims - The Deputy Minister of Communications also revoked the certification of the series - The taxpayers applied under s. 18 of the Federal Court Act for judicial review of the decertification order - The Federal Court of Appeal affirmed a Trial Division decision holding that it lacked jurisdiction because s. 29 of the Federal Court Act deprived the court of jurisdiction where an assessment appeal was provided for in the Income Tax Act.

Cases Noticed:

Minister of National Revenue v. Parsons, [1984] 2 F.C. 331; 54 N.R. 227 (C.A.), folld. [para. 1].

Statutes Noticed:

Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, sect. 18, sect. 29 [para. 1].

Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985 (5th Supp.), c. 1, generally [para. 1].

Income Tax Act Regulations, C.R.C. 1978, c. 945, sect. 1104(2) [para. 1].

Counsel:

Thomas O. Davis, for the appellants;

Bruce Logan, for the respondents.

Solicitors of Record:

McDonald, Plotkins, Anderson and Co., Calgary, Alberta, for the appellants;

John C. Tait, Q.C., Deputy Attorney Gen­eral of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondents.

This appeal was heard at Calgary, Alberta, on November 30, 1992, by Isaac, C.J., Pratte and Hugessen, JJ.A, of the Federal Court of Appeal.

The decision of the Court of Appeal was delivered at Calgary, Alberta, on November 30, 1992, by Hugessen, J.A.