As expected, the taxpayer has filed a Supplementary Memorandum of Fact and Law in its transfer pricing appeal in the Federal Court of Appeal.
Earlier, the Federal Court of Appeal allowed the taxpayer’s motion to add a new ground of appeal and to file a supplementary factum.
The taxpayer’s Supplementary Memorandum of Fact and Law is substantially identical to the draft factum that it had filed with its motion materials. The original draft factum was 30-pages, whereas the taxpayer’s filed Supplementary Memorandum of Fact and Law has been, on the instructions of the Court of Appeal, reduced to 20-pages. In its Order on the motion, the Court stated,
 Unnecessarily lengthy, diffuse submissions are like an unpacked, fluffy snowball. Throw it, and the target hardly feels it. On the other hand, short, highly focused submissions are like a snowball packed tightly into an iceball. Throw it, and the target really feels it. Shorter written submissions are better advocacy and, thus, are much more helpful to the Court.
In its supplementary factum, the taxpayer has stated:
- The trial judge’s recusal reasons compromise the appearance or reality of a fair process such that a new trial is necessary;
- A trial judge has no right or duty to intervene in the conduct of an appeal;
- The trial judge in this case “put himself into the appellate arena in a direct and sustained manner”;
- The recusal reasons raise “serious concerns” and would cause “any reasonable observer to doubt the impartiality” of the trial judge;
- The recusal reasons “stack the deck” against the taxpayer;
- An intervention by the trial judge interferes with the autonomy of the parties to frame the issues before the Court of Appeal on their own terms;
- This interference is a deliberate attempt to meddle in the case on its merits;
- The trial judge has suggested to the Court of Appeal that it must choose between allowing the taxpayer’s appeal and upholding the trial judge’s honesty and integrity;
- A reasonable person would conclude the trial judge harbours some animus against the taxpayer that pre-dates the trial judge’s reading of the taxpayer’s factum in the Court of Appeal;
- The trial judge was not detached and even-handed in how he dealt with this case;
- A litigant in the taxpayer’s position could not reasonably believe it had received a “fair shake” from a process that produced “such an extraordinary intervention” in the appeal by the trial judge; and
- The trial judge’s conduct calls into question the fairness of the entire process and must be remedied by a new trial before a different judge.
The Crown’s responding memorandum has not yet been filed.