R. v. Gary Bowl Ltd., (1974) 4 N.R. 172 (FCA)
Judge | Thurlow and Ryan, JJ. |
Court | Federal Court of Appeal (Canada) |
Case Date | June 13, 1974 |
Jurisdiction | Canada (Federal) |
Citations | (1974), 4 N.R. 172 (FCA) |
R. v. Gary Bowl Ltd. (1974), 4 N.R. 172 (FCA)
MLB headnote and full text
R. v. Gary Bowl Ltd.
Indexed As: R. v. Gary Bowl Ltd.
Federal Court of Appeal
Thurlow and Ryan, JJ.
and MacKay, D.J.
June 21, 1974.
Summary:
This case arose out of a nil assessment of a taxpayer for the years 1967, 1968 and 1969. The taxpayer appealed the nil assessments to the Tax Review Board. The Tax Review Board referred the nil assessments back to the Minister for reconsideration and reassessment.
The Minister applied to the Trial Division of the Federal Court of Canada for a judgment on the basis that a taxpayer does not have a right of appeal from a nil assessment. The nil assessment was admitted in the pleadings and the Minister applied for a judgment based on admissions. The Trial Division of the Federal Court of Canada dismissed the Minister's application.
On appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal, the appeal was allowed, the judgment of the Trial Division was set aside and the nil assessments against the taxpayer were restored. The Federal Court of Appeal stated that the taxpayer did not have a right of appeal to the Tax Review Board because the taxpayer had nothing to complain about - see paragraph 11.
Practice - Topic 5551
Judgments and orders - Judgments on admissions - Federal Court Rule 341 - The Federal Court of Appeal outlined the circumstances to which the rule applied - The Federal Court of Appeal stated that a motion for judgment based on admissions is limited to situations where as a result of the admissions there is nothing in controversy - See paragraph 8.
Income Tax - Topic 7955
Assessments and appeals - Appeals to the Tax Review Board - Appeal from a nil assessment - The Federal Court of Appeal set aside a judgment of the Tax Review Board which ordered a reassessment because the taxpayer had a nil assessment and had nothing to complain about - The Federal Court of Appeal ordered that the nil assessment be restored.
Income Tax - Topic 8004
Assessments and appeals - Appeals to the courts - Federal Court, jurisdiction - The Federal Court of Appeal held that the Federal Court had jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the Tax Review Board respecting a right of appeal from a nil assessment - See paragraph 14.
Cases Noticed:
Libby-Owens-Ford Glass Company v. Ford Motor Company of Canada et al., [1969] 1 Ex. C.R. 440, at 444, refd to. [para. 3].
Thorp v. Holdsworth, [1876] 3 Ch.D. 637, folld. [para. 5].
Gilbert v. Smith, [1876] 2 Ch.D. 686, folld. [para. 6].
Okalta Oils Ltd. v. M.N.R, [1955] S.C.R. 824, folld. [para. 9].
Anjulin Farms Ltd. v. M.N.R., [1961] Ex. C.R. 381, dist. [para. 10].
Statutes Noticed:
Federal Court Rules, rule 341 [para. 2].
Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 148, sect. 60 [para. 14].
Counsel:
N.A. Chalmers, Q.C., for the appellant;
Morley Greene, for the respondent.
This appeal was heard by the Federal Court of Appeal at Ottawa, Ontario on June 13, 1974. Judgment was delivered by the Federal Court of Appeal on June 21, 1974.
The judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal was delivered by THURLOW, J.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Irving Oil Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue, (1988) 16 F.T.R. 253 (TD)
...[1957] 2 Q.B. 1, refd to. [para. 105]. Cane v. Royal College of Music, [1961] 2 Q.B. 89, refd to. [para. 105]. R. v. Gary Bowl Limited (1974), 4 N.R. 172; 74 D.T.C. 6401 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. Statutes Noticed: Income Tax Act, S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 63, sect. 18(1)(a) [para. 86]; sect. 67 [......
-
DuPont Canada Inc. v. Glopak Inc., (1998) 146 F.T.R. 301 (TD)
...to the patent of invention, and, in particular to its claims." - See paragraph 27. Cases Noticed: R. v. Gary Bowl Ltd., [1974] 2 F.C. 146; 4 N.R. 172 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 16]. Allied Colloids Ltd. v. Alkaril Chemicals Ltd. (1990), 34 C.P.R.(3d) 426 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 16]. Americ......
-
Olympia Interiors Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue, (1993) 66 F.T.R. 81 (TD)
...24]. Pizza Pizza Ltd. v. Gillespie (1991), 75 O.R.(2d) 225 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 27]. Canada v. Gary Bowl Ltd., [1974] 2 F.C. 146; 4 N.R. 172 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 29]. Cyrus J. Moulton Ltd. v. Canada, [1976] 1 F.C. 437 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 29]. Flexi-Coil Ltd. v. Bourgault ......
-
Flexi-Coil Ltd. v. Bourgault (F.P.) Industries, (1990) 36 F.T.R. 149 (TD)
...Co. Ltd. et al. v. Photo Sound Corporation et al., [1936] S.C.R. 649, dist. [paras. 8, 18, 21]. R. v. Gary Bowl Limited, [1974] 2 F.C. 146; 4 N.R. 172 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. Preston v. 20th Century Fox Corp. and Lucas (1987), 15 F.T.R. 54; 15 C.I.P.R. 110 (F.T.D.), refd to. [para. 17]. C......
-
Irving Oil Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue, (1988) 16 F.T.R. 253 (TD)
...[1957] 2 Q.B. 1, refd to. [para. 105]. Cane v. Royal College of Music, [1961] 2 Q.B. 89, refd to. [para. 105]. R. v. Gary Bowl Limited (1974), 4 N.R. 172; 74 D.T.C. 6401 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. Statutes Noticed: Income Tax Act, S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 63, sect. 18(1)(a) [para. 86]; sect. 67 [......
-
DuPont Canada Inc. v. Glopak Inc., (1998) 146 F.T.R. 301 (TD)
...to the patent of invention, and, in particular to its claims." - See paragraph 27. Cases Noticed: R. v. Gary Bowl Ltd., [1974] 2 F.C. 146; 4 N.R. 172 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 16]. Allied Colloids Ltd. v. Alkaril Chemicals Ltd. (1990), 34 C.P.R.(3d) 426 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 16]. Americ......
-
Olympia Interiors Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue, (1993) 66 F.T.R. 81 (TD)
...24]. Pizza Pizza Ltd. v. Gillespie (1991), 75 O.R.(2d) 225 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 27]. Canada v. Gary Bowl Ltd., [1974] 2 F.C. 146; 4 N.R. 172 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 29]. Cyrus J. Moulton Ltd. v. Canada, [1976] 1 F.C. 437 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 29]. Flexi-Coil Ltd. v. Bourgault ......
-
Flexi-Coil Ltd. v. Bourgault (F.P.) Industries, (1990) 36 F.T.R. 149 (TD)
...Co. Ltd. et al. v. Photo Sound Corporation et al., [1936] S.C.R. 649, dist. [paras. 8, 18, 21]. R. v. Gary Bowl Limited, [1974] 2 F.C. 146; 4 N.R. 172 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. Preston v. 20th Century Fox Corp. and Lucas (1987), 15 F.T.R. 54; 15 C.I.P.R. 110 (F.T.D.), refd to. [para. 17]. C......