|
Docket: 2007-1583(IT)G
|
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
LILIA SARIEGO ANDERSON,
|
|
Appellant,
|
|
and
|
|
|
|
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
|
|
Respondent.
|
____________________________________________________________________
Appeals heard on common evidence with the appeals of
Garry Joseph Anderson (2007-1584(IT)G) on July 8, 2009
at Vancouver,
British Columbia
|
Before: The
Honourable Justice L.M. Little
|
|
|
|
Appearances:
|
|
|
|
For the
Appellant:
|
The Appellant herself
|
|
|
|
Counsel for the
Respondent:
|
Selena Sit
|
____________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
Whereas
the Appellant filed Notices of Appeal on the 28th day of March 2007 and Amended
Notices of Appeal on the 19th day of April 2007;
Whereas the Respondent filed a
Reply on the 14th day of June 2007;
Whereas the Appellant filed a
series of Notices of Motion and Amended Notices of Motion, plus numerous
miscellaneous, irrelevant and unrelated documents with the Court;
Whereas the appeals were set down
for hearing in Vancouver on the 8th and 9th day of July
2009;
Whereas when the appeals were
called for hearing on the 8th day of July 2009 the Appellant (Garry Joseph
Anderson) refused to be sworn or affirmed in order to provide the Court with the
evidence required to proceed with the appeals;
Whereas counsel for the
Respondent moved that the appeals be dismissed for want of prosecution;
Now therefore this Court orders that the appeals from the assessments made under the Income Tax Act
for the 2000, 2001 and 2002 taxation years be dismissed for want of
prosecution in accordance with the Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at Vancouver, British Columbia,
this 13th day of August 2009.
Little
J.
|
Citation: 2009 TCC 401
|
|
Date: 20090813
|
|
Docket: 2007-1583(IT)G
|
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
LILIA SARIEGO ANDERSON,
|
|
Appellant,
|
|
and
|
|
|
|
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
|
|
Respondent.
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Little J.
A.
FACTS
[1] The Appellant filed Notices of Appeal
on the 28th day of March 2007 and Amended Notices of Appeal on the 19th day of
April 2007.
[2] The Respondent filed a Reply on the 14th day of June 2007.
[3] The Appellant filed numerous Notices of Motion and Amended
Notices of Motion, plus a number of miscellaneous, irrelevant and unrelated
documents with the Court.
[4] The Appellant’s appeals plus the appeals of her husband,
Garry Joseph Anderson, were set down for hearing in Vancouver on the 8th and 9th of July 2009.
[5] When the Appellant’s appeals plus her husband’s appeals were
called for hearing, the Appellant, Garry Joseph Anderson, refused to be sworn
or affirmed in order to provide the evidence required to proceed with the
appeals.
[6] During the hearing the Appellant, Garry Joseph Anderson, was
asked on at least 12 occasions if he would be sworn or affirmed. The Appellant
(Garry Joseph Anderson) refused to be sworn or affirmed.
[7] During the hearing the Appellant, Garry Joseph Anderson, said
that his wife had given him power of attorney to speak for her. He said, “She
will follow whatever decision comes upon me.” (Transcript, page 37, lines 14-16).
[8] The following exchange took place:
JUSTICE: I’d like to hear her say that. Do you
accept that, Mrs. Anderson? You can’t talk?
MRS. ANDERSON: No.
(Transcript, page 37,
lines 17-19)
[9] I asked Counsel for the Respondent to comment on the refusal by
Garry Joseph Anderson to be sworn or affirmed.
[10] Counsel for the Respondent said:
If the Appellant is not here in person today, the Respondent
asks that appeal be dismissed for want of prosecution, and for the failure to
appear.
(Transcript,
page 45, lines 15-18)
(Note:
The reference by Counsel for the Respondent to the Appellant (Garry Joseph
Anderson) not being in Court is a reference to the fact that he, Garry Joseph
Anderson, was claiming that he was not the Appellant. The Appellant (Garry Joseph
Anderson) said that he was not in Court as the Appellant. Garry Joseph Anderson
said that he was in Court as the beneficiary (Transcript, page 38, lines 23-24).)
[11] Counsel for the Respondent also asked for
increased costs.
[12] During the hearing I said:
JUSTICE: This case was called for hearing some time ago, and
the case will be set down for two days, July 8 and July 9, expected to last for
two days. Motions were to be heard during the time, and the Minister of
Justice filed a motion that the case be dismissed because it was frivolous,
vexatious or scandalous. When the case was called, Mr. Anderson refused to be
sworn or affirmed, and Mr. Anderson also refused to accept the position that
his wife could not be -- appear in court unless she was represented by counsel.
[See Note below]
Having considered the circumstances, I have
concluded that the case should be dismissed for want of prosecution, and I
impose costs payable forthwith in the amount of $500.
(Transcript, page 48, lines 7-20)
[13] After I had made the above comments, the
Appellant (Garry Joseph Anderson) said:
I accept the Court’s
Order, Your Honour --
…
-- for 180 million
dollars.
(Transcript, page 48, lines 21-24)
[14] Note: Section 17.1(1) of the Tax Court
of Canada Act provides as follows:
Right to appear
17.1(1)
A party to a proceeding in respect of which this section applies may
appear in person or be represented by counsel, but where the party wishes to be
represented by counsel, only a person who is referred to in subsection (2)
shall represent the party.
Officers of the Court
(2) Every person who may practise as a barrister, advocate,
attorney or solicitor in any of the provinces may so practise in the Court and
is an officer of the Court.
This Rule was referred to during the
hearing. (Transcript, page 23, lines 19-24).
[15] The appeal is dismissed without costs.
Signed at Vancouver, British Columbia, this 13th day of August 2009.
Little
J.
Email this Content