[This is crossposted from our ADCS blog by John Richardson.
— Following the negative decision of Justice Martineau in the Summary Trial, Plaintiffs Ginny and Gwen instructed the Arvay team to appeal the ruling. Consistent with Federal Court Rules, the Federal Court of Appeal was asked to permit the appeal to be heard together with all other (expected) appeals arising out of the Constitutional-Charter trial. The Crown attorneys did not object to this request and on November 6, 2015 Madam Justice Dawson of the Federal Court of Appeal granted permission to “park” (hold in abeyance) the summary trial appeal until all Charter trial appeals are heard.
As John Richardson says below, this is important because it preserves our right to appeal on arguments that might ultimately prove to be successful, and, by arguing all appeals in one hearing, will also reduce legal costs for all parties.]
A brief update:
As you know the Alliance For The Defence of Canadian Sovereignty is appealing Justice Martineau’s decision from the August 4, 5/15 hearing.
We have been successful in arranging for that appeal to be heard along with the hearing in the main Charter trial.
This is good because it BOTH preserves the right for the appeal to be heard and minimizes the costs of a separate appeal hearing.
Canada Federal Court of Appeal gives plaintiffs the ok to park and preserve Summary Trial appeal.
It is a shame we cannot just walk into our supreme courts both in The USA and Canada and say
”your honor these guys are nuts, please help us” and the Justices would take it and look at the facts using government investigators if needed and render a decision that made sense, but we have to bend into contortions and spend lots of money for Hack Lawyers, who take as much time and as many words as they can and as many delays as they can and finally judges give decisions that satisfy an interest group they favor and logic and reason doesn’t enter into it.
‘It is a shame we cannot just walk into our supreme courts both in The USA and Canada and say
”your honor these guys are nuts, please help us”’
I did. US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit made it mandatory that a tax filer has to fabricate a social security number when the Social Security Administration has neither granted nor rejected an application and the IRS has only rejected ITIN applications. US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit fabricated its own fact that I had not completed and returned forms that the IRS had sent me even though the IRS agrees with me that the IRS had not sent forms and the IRS doesn’t even know what forms the Federal Circuit is talking about. US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit fabricated its own fact that the IRS rejected one particular refiled return even though the IRS continues to insist that they accepted it. US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld US Court of Federal Claims’s violation of US Supreme Court precedents US v. Sullivan and Garner v. US. I told US Supreme Court that the Federal Circuit is nuts and US Supreme Court didn’t give a shit. It’s their job not to give a shit. Even when there are conflicting circuit rulings on whether it’s legal to fabricate social security numbers and whether it’s legal to tell the truth on a US tax return.
I am very glad to hear that this decision has been made regarding the appeal of Justice Martineau’s judgment.
I hope that the appeal will bring out, with great clarity, the fact that the FATCA IGA goes above and beyond any international tax agreement that has ever existed between Canada and the United States. It is my understanding that at no time have account *balances* ever been required to be reported between the two countries. Taxation is interested solely in account *earnings*.
The FATCA IGA enters territory never trodden before in a tax agreement which is why I find it inexplicable that Justice Martineau could say that there was no conflict between it and either the Tax Treaty or the Canadian Tax Code.
This concept is completely new to me. I’m confused. What does it mean to “park (hold in abeyance) the summary trial appeal until all Charter trial appeals are heard”? What other Charter trial appeals? Why would there be other trial appeals?
Thanks for the update. I must have been under a rock – this posting is the first I’ve heard about an appeal of Justice Martineau’s ruling.
We expect that whoever loses the future Charter trial will appeal the decision. This appeal will be heard at the Federal Court of Appeal. After we lost the summary trial decision (on non-Charter arguments) we asked permission of the Court of Appeal to have the summary trial appeal heard at the same time as any appeals arising out of the future Charter trial. Justice Dawson gave us the ok to do this.
A key factor in making this request to “park” the appeal was cost. We don’t have unlimited monies for litigation like the Government, and litigating two appeals at the same time, vs. at separate times, will reduce costs that our donors will somehow have to provide.
You were not under a rock. This is the first announcement ADCS has made concerning an appeal of the summary trial decision. We could not make any announcement until Justice Dawson made the decision on when the appeal could be heard.