|
Stare Decisis - Reconsidering Precedent (2). Chad v. Canada
In Chad v. Canada (Fed CA, 2026) the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed an income tax appeal, here brought against a Tax Court confirmation of the Minister’s reassessment - and this wrt the finding "that the appellant undertook that activity in pursuit of loss, not profit", and thus could not claim a loss deduction.
Here the court considers the test for reconsidering stare decisis:[14] First, to conclude Paletta Estate is manifestly wrong this Court must be satisfied that Paletta Estate overlooked a relevant statutory provision or a case that ought to have been followed: Tan v. Canada (Attorney General), 2018 FCA 186 at para. 31, citing Miller v. Canada (Attorney General), 2002 FCA 370 at para. 10. The appellant has not identified any such provision or case. To the contrary, Paletta Estate expressly considered both Stewart and Walls and explained that they too are premised on pursuit of profit as an essential feature of a source of income: Stewart at paras. 5, 50, 51, 53, 58, 62, 68.
[15] The appellant’s disagreement with this Court’s interpretation of Stewart and Walls falls far short of meeting the "“manifestly wrong”" threshold. Paletta Estate is not a departure from Stewart and Walls.
|
