Christina Ham

The appellants' counsel brought a motion to be removed from the record just before the scheduled hearing on the merits.

The appellants also sought leave for a corporate appellant to be represented by its officer (a non-lawyer) for the motions, and requested an adjournment to retain new counsel.

The Tax Court of Canada granted the motion to remove counsel.

The Court also granted leave for the corporate appellant to be represented by its officer for the motions, interpreting section 30(2) of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure) as compatible with the right to appear in person under section 17.1 of the Tax Court of Canada Act.

Finally, the Court granted the adjournment, awarding costs to the respondent and the removed counsel.

The appellant, a former municipal judge, sought to deduct legal expenses incurred in a motion for a declaratory judgment challenging his mandatory retirement at age 70 and seeking to accrue additional pension credits.

The Minister disallowed the deduction under paragraph 8(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act.

The Tax Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding that the legal expenses were not incurred to collect an amount owed for past services, but rather to establish a future right to perform duties and accrue pension credits, which does not qualify for the deduction.

The appellant appealed reassessments for the 2006 and 2007 taxation years and assessments for the 2008 and 2009 taxation years.

The Minister used the deposit method for 2006 and 2007, and assessed unreported income based on currency exchange transactions for 2008 and 2009.

The Minister conceded the 2006 appeal and partially conceded the 2007 appeal at the hearing.

The Tax Court allowed the 2007 appeal, finding the appellant adequately explained the remaining bank deposits as transfers between accounts and SAAQ benefits.

The Court allowed the 2008 appeal, accepting that the funds used for exchange transactions came from the appellant's own savings and family loans.

However, the Court dismissed the 2009 appeal, rejecting the appellant's claim that he reused the same funds for multiple exchange transactions, finding his testimony and evidence regarding a specific currency exchange office lacked credibility.