Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Dispute arose from a tax assessment issued by Agence du revenu du Québec for the 2018 taxation year.

• Plaintiff sought to contest the assessment based on the outcome of a related Tax Court of Canada ruling.

• Attempted representation by the plaintiff’s father was rejected due to lack of written mandate and legal incapacity.

• The court evaluated whether the principle of judicial comity should apply, given a similar ruling issued the same day.

• Fair market value of a property transaction was central, with values set by the Tax Court at $90,000.

• The Tribunal ultimately aligned its decision with the Tax Court’s findings but upheld the preliminary motion to dismiss.

Facts and procedural context

Michael Abandonato challenged a tax reassessment issued by the Agence du revenu du Québec (ARQ) for the year 2018. The reassessment stemmed from a transaction involving the purchase of a property. A related appeal had been filed and decided before the Tax Court of Canada by 9310-1731 Québec inc., a company involved in a similar property transaction. In that case, the fair market value of the property was established at $90,000.

In the present matter, Michael Abandonato’s father, Daniel Abandonato, attempted to represent him at a procedural hearing. He argued that his son could not attend because he was at work and the hearing concerned only a preliminary motion. The court noted that under article 93.18 of the Loi sur l’administration fiscale, legal representation by another person is only allowed if the party is legally unable to act and has issued a written mandate to that effect. Since no such mandate was filed, the court ruled that the plaintiff had to be present himself.

Outcome of the decision

The court refused to allow Daniel Abandonato to represent his son and proceeded with the hearing. It noted that the plaintiff’s arguments would have mirrored those presented in the related Tax Court of Canada case by the same representative. The Tribunal chose to apply the principle of judicial comity and adopted the reasoning from the Tax Court's decision, which had also been rendered on the same day.

Ultimately, the Tribunal granted ARQ’s preliminary motion to dismiss the case, determining that the plaintiff’s appeal could not proceed independently from the related Tax Court decision. However, it partially allowed the plaintiff’s contestation insofar as it reflected the Tax Court’s findings—particularly recognizing the fair market value of the properties involved. Each party was ordered to bear their own costs.