CLE Seminars
   Dates and Places
   Timed Agenda
Scholarly Presentations
United States
Before & After
Itinerary 2012
Free Downloads
Buy “Writing for the Court”
International Institute for Legal Writing + Reasoning















Next >>





[1]    The Respondent has applied for an Order quashing the Appellant's appeal. In the alternative, the Respondent seeks an Order granting the Respondent an extension of time of 30 days to file a Reply to the Notice of Appeal.

[2]    Prior to filing this appeal, the Appellant had successfully appealed a reassessment for the same taxation year to this Court. In this appeal, the Appellant is appealing the reassessment that was issued by the Minister of National Revenue as the result of the judgment of this Court in that earlier appeal. The Respondent is seeking to quash the Appellant's appeal this time around on the grounds that the Court, in its judgment on the first appeal, has conclusively dealt with the issues that are now being raised.

[3]    In order to understand the positions of the parties on this application, it is necessary to set out in some detail the background to, and history of, the Appellant's first appeal.

[4]    The Appellant worked for Atomic Energy Canada Limited ("AECL") from 1967 to 1987. In 1984, he was demoted by AECL due to certain actions taken by AECL's major customer, Ontario Hydro. In August 1986,


Syed Yousef Ahmed worked for Atomic Energy Canada. In 1984 he was demoted as a result of allegations made by Ontario Hydro, one of AEC's major companies. He filed suit against Ontario Hyrdro and was ultimately awarded general damages, damages for libel, and interest on the award.

In 2001, the Minister of National Revenue reassessed Mr. Ahmed's taxes to include the awards for general damages and interest. Mr. Ahmed contests the reassessment on the following grounds:

  • That awards for damages should not be considered income;
  • That interest on awards should not be considered income;
  • That his legal costs should be deductible.

In his response, the Minister argues that the issues raised on this appeal have been or ought to have been raised in an earlier appeal, and therefore must be considered res judicata. This is the threshold issue.

<< Sample 9 Sample Index >>