The judgment in Chaput v R, 2011 TCC 363, is short and to the point. I reproduce it here in its entirety:
[1] This is an appeal regarding the 2007 taxation year. After reading the Notice of Appeal and Reply to the Notice of Appeal, and after hearing the comments and arguments of the agent for the appellant, Serge Fréchette, I find that the appeal must be dismissed since its only basis and all the elements taken into consideration in its support are frivolous, trivial or even insignificant.
[2] Moreover, in the circumstances, I confirm the validity of the penalty, since the appellant acknowledged and accepted the process and trivial arguments of his agent after being sworn in; the fact he consented and encouraged such an initiative constitutes gross negligence because it is essentially a crazy strategy implemented to avoid his tax liabilities.
Now I’m dying to know what the case was really about. Justice Tardif, however, clearly thought it a waste of his time to repeat what he had heard in court.
