Cadrin v. Canada
A-112-97
Décary J.A.
17/12/98
5 pp.
Appeal against Tax Court of Canada decision concerning income tax assessment issued by Minister of National Revenue for 1991-Trial Judge finding appellant liable in decision issued before Federal Court of Appeal clarifying interpretation to be given to Income Tax Act, s. 227.1(3) in Soper v. Canada, [1998] 1 F.C. 124-Counsel for appellant could not argue simple fact outside director unaware and does not take steps to learn of duties law imposes on director sufficient, according to Soper, to exonerate director from all liability-Counsel for appellant properly argued even if ignorance no excuse, nonetheless not fatal-Had Trial Judge been aware of criteria Federal Court of Appeal has since set in Soper and particularly different approach to be taken depending on whether director inside or outside director, Trial Judge would necessarily have come to conclusion appellant not liable-Appellant simply silent partner who functioned from distance, as own affairs conducted from Quebec City and those of business in which appellant had invested, from Jonquière-Appellant had taken all business and accounting precautions before investing and had every reason to rely on day-to-day management partner had undertaken-Trial Judge could not find appellant demonstrated culpable passivity-Trial Judge dealt with matter as if appellant inside director, which appellant was not-Appeal allowed-Income Tax Act, S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 63, s. 227.1 (as enacted by S.C. 1980-81-82-83, c. 140, s. 124; 1984, c. 1, s. 100; 1988, c. 55, s. 172).