看看所謂的法律有何公正

 Federal Court of Appeal 

A-215-25

BETWEEN:

Xin Wang 

                    

Appellant 

                                         

and

Attorney General of Canada 

                                                     Respondent 

Reply on Rule 74 Review 

TO THE Judicial Administrator:

Dear Sir or Madam:

RULE 74 (1) Subject to subsection (2), the Court may, at any time, order that a document be removed from the Court file if the document 

(a) was not filed in accordance with these Rules, an order of the Court or an Act of Parliament; 

(b) is scandalous, frivolous, vexatious or clearly unfounded; or

 (c) is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court.

The Respondent makes no mention which part of the Rule 74 the Respondent is relying on in its Response dated July 23 2025, served by email on me on July 25th 2025.

The Respondent misses the whole point of argument in the Notice of Appeal filed on June 3rd 2025 by the Appellant. The Appellant is requesting the Court of Appeal to examine the justification of exclusion of documents in the Tax Court trial, and the legal basis of only admitting the facts presented in the Tax Court Notice of Appeal, therefore any facts discovered after filing the case are excluded from the Tax Court Decision. The Appellant is not asking this Federal Court of Appeal to reexamine the facts presented in the Tax Court Trial. 

The factual error of fact denial occurs when the income from 2062460 Ontario is not taken into account in the Tax Court decision due to the fact that the Memorandum of facts and laws by the Appellant is not allowed in the Tax Court trial. The Respondent position on this error is unknown because the Respondent chooses not to respond to this error in any way in its written representation. 

The Respondent made lengthy complaints about the Notice of Appeal in Federal Court, making baseless allegations such as The Appellant is requesting fact reexamination despite the title saying it is about procedure fault. 

The Appellant provides facts about the incomes and tries to explain why the income from O&B Transport was not received in 2021 when it should have. It is up to the discretion of the Tax Court to handle the circumstantial evidence. 

The Notice of Appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal by the Appellant has the essential elements of grounds of procedure fairness and factual error of fact denial, the retrial remedy is clearly stated, which part of the laws apply.

The Review Direction , dated June 11th 2025 by Biringer J.A. states a future review will base its decision on the chance of success appeal. That is a clear violation of Rule 74.

The Respondent reiterates the same success appeal evaluation, which is not what the Rule 74 is meant to do.

The Review Direction complaints about lack of reasons or legal remedy for The Appeal filed on June 3rd 2025. The Appellant clearly requests a retrial with the facts submitted in the documents that were ordered to be excluded in the previous trial. The Direction states the Appellant has no clear request in the Appeal Application, but offers no explanation why a retrial is not a legitimate request for remedy.

The Appeal is based on procedure fault, which argues that the exclusion of properly served and submitted documents and facts rise to compromising the procedure fairness and factual error of fact denials.

Subsection 27(1.3) of the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7 which provides that: (1.3) The only grounds for an appeal under subsection (1.2) are that the Tax Court of Canada

 (a) acted without jurisdiction, acted beyond its jurisdiction or refused to exercise its jurisdiction; 

(b) failed to observe a principle of natural justice, procedural fairness or other procedure that it was required by law to observe;

 (c) erred in law in making a decision or an order, whether or not the error appears on the face of the record; 

(d) based its decision or order on an erroneous finding of fact that it made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it; 

(e) acted, or failed to act, by reason of fraud or perjured evidence; or

 (f) acted in any other way that was contrary to law. 

The Appeal is based on 

(b) failed to observe a principle of natural justice, procedural fairness or other procedure that it was required by law to observe; 

The Direction states there's no ground for the Appeal, but offers no explanation why procedural fairness and fact denial without legal basis are not legitimate grounds for appeal in this case.

The Appellant 

Xin Wang

 307 1st Ave W Climax SK S0N0N0 306 510 2499 Benkingfirst@gmail.com 

Also served on the Respondent :

Bryn K. Frape

Counsel 

Prairie Region 

Department of Justice Canada 

Saskatoon Office

 National Litigation Sector 410 – 22nd St E, Suite 410 Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7K 5T6

 Fax: 306-975-4030 

Phone: (639) 916-2742

Bryn.Frape@justice.gc.ca