Docket: 2003-260(GST)G
BETWEEN:
COUNTRY WIDE PLUMBING & HEATING LTD.,
RICK QUENVILLE and DON LAVALLEE,
Appellants,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
____________________________________________________________________
Motion
determined pursuant to Rule 69 of the
Tax Court of Canada Rules (General
Procedure)
By: The Honourable
Justice C.H. McArthur
|
Agent for the Appellants:
|
Don
Lavallee
|
|
Counsel for the Respondent:
|
Michael Ezri
|
____________________________________________________________________
ORDER
Upon motion by the Respondent for an Order pursuant to
Rule 172(1)(a) of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General
Procedure) to amend the wording of the judgment dated February 2, 2006,
issued in this appeal;
AND UPON having read the materials filed, and the written
submissions of both parties filed pursuant to Rule 69;
IT IS
ORDERED that the Respondent’s motion is denied.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 9th day of September 2009.
“C.H. McArthur”
Citation: 2009 TCC 446
Date: 20090909
Docket: 2003-260(GST)G
BETWEEN:
COUNTRY WIDE PLUMBING & HEATING LTD.,
RICK QUENVILLE and DON LAVALLEE,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR ORDER
McArthur J.
[1]
This is a motion for an
Order pursuant to Rule 172(1) of the Tax Court of Canada (General
Procedure) (the Rules) amending the judgment dated February 2, 2006,
in these three appeals from dismissed to …dismissed, with costs.
[2]
The facts include the
following:
Reasons for Judgment were delivered in Sudbury, Ontario on January
26, 2006.
On February 2, 2006, the Court issued a Judgment in each of these cases
dismissing the Appellants’ appeals. The issue of costs was not addressed. The
Respondent requested that the appeals be dismissed with costs in the Replies of
the Notices of Appeal.
It was brought to the Respondent’s attention by the Court during the
week of May 11, 2009 that the Judgments did not address the issue of
costs. The Court advised the Respondent that, in order to proceed with the
taxation of costs, it had to file a motion with the Court to amend the Judgments.
The Respondent requests that this court consider the terms of the Judgment
dated February 2, 2006, in each appeal, pursuant to Rule 172(1)(a)
of the Rules because the matter of costs that should have been dealt
with has been overlooked or accidentally omitted.
The slip rule is available in cases in which the court has made an
accidental mistake or omission, or has given a Judgment that manifestly does
not accord with the reasons given. See Highway Customs Warehouse Ltd. v. The
Queen 2007 TCC 715, 2008 D.T.C. 2500 (T.C.C.) and Bujnowski v. The Queen,
2006 FCA 32, D.T.C. 6071 (F.C.A.).
[3]
To grant the motions
would be stretching the Rules far beyond what is intended and
reasonable.
[4]
Rules 168(a) and
(b) , read as follows:
168. Where the Court has pronounced a judgment
disposing of an appeal any party may within ten days after that party has
knowledge of the judgment, move the Court to reconsider the terms of the
judgment on the grounds only,
(a) that the judgement does not accord
with the reasons for judgment, if any, or
(b) that some matter that should have
been dealt with in the judgment has been overlooked or accidentally omitted.
[5]
Several years have
passed since the Judgments were issued and it would be an abuse of process to
amend at this stage. I agree in principle with the Appellant’s response dated
August 6, 2009.
[6]
The Respondent’s
motions are denied.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 9th day of September 2009.
“C.H. McArthur”
CITATION: 2009 TCC 446
COURT FILE NO.: 2003-260(GST)G
STYLE OF CAUSE: COUNTRY WIDE PLUMBING & HEATING LTD., RICK QUENVILLE and DON
LAVALLEE and
HER
MAJESTY QUEEN
REASONS FOR ORDER
BY: The Honourable Justice C.H. McArthur
DATE OF ORDER: September 9, 2009
|
Agent the
Appellants:
|
Don Lavallee
|
|
Counsel for the
Respondent:
|
Michael Ezri
|
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For the Appellants:
Name: N/A
Firm: N/A
For the
Respondent: John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy
Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa,
Canada
Email this Content