Law firm appealed order that held that GST imposed by s. 165 of Excise Tax Act (Can.), did not infringe and was not inconsistent with rights of law firm’s clients guaranteed by s. 10(b) of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Appeal dismissed. Section 165(1) of Act had valid purpose. Law firm failed to establish that s. 165 of Act violated s. 10(b) of Charter. Law firm was required to produce evidence to demonstrate effect of GST on rights of clients but it failed to do so. Complete lack of evidence was fatal to constitutional challenge. GST imposed by s. 165 of Act did not infringe and was not inconsistent with rights of law firm’s clients guaranteed by s. 10(b) of Charter.
Stanley J. Tessmer Law Corp. v. R. (Dec. 12, 2013, F.C.A., Eleanor R. Dawson J.A., Johanne Trudel J.A., and D.G.Near J.A., File No. A-104-09, A-50-13, A-51-13, A-52-13, A-53-13, A-54-13) Decision at 224 A.C.W.S. (3d) 508 was affirmed. 236 A.C.W.S. (3d) 259.