Docket: 2006-1823(IT)G
BETWEEN:
LUCIE DESPOT,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
____________________________________________________________________
Motion heard on February 19, 2008, at Montréal, Quebec
Before: The Honourable
Justice Gaston Jorré
Appearances:
|
For the Appellant:
|
No one appeared
|
|
|
|
|
Counsel for the Respondent:
|
Claude Lamoureux
|
____________________________________________________________________
ORDER
In accordance with the attached Reasons for Order,
the Court orders that:
1. the Appellant produce
and serve on the Respondent, no later than April 4, 2008, a list of
documents in accordance with section 81 of the Tax Court of Canada
Rules (General Procedure);
2. the Appellant respond
to the undertakings arising out of the examinations for discovery, no later
than April 4, 2008, and produce a copy of her response to the undertakings
no later than April 4, 2008;
3. the Appellant pay the
Respondent's costs of the motion, regardless of the outcome of the case, costs
being fixed at $1,000 and payable to the Respondent by certified cheque no
later than April 4, 2008;
4. the Appellant file
proof of payment of the Respondent's costs with the Registry of the Court no
later than April 16, 2008.
The dates set are peremptory. If the
Appellant fails to comply with this Order, the appeal will be dismissed without
further notice or motion for dismissal of the appeal.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 29th day of February 2008.
"Gaston Jorré"
Translation
certified true
on this 16th day
of April 2008.
Brian McCordick,
Translator
Citation: 2008TCC127
Date: 20080229
Docket: 2006-1823(IT)G
BETWEEN:
LUCIE DESPOT,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR ORDER
Jorré J.
[1]
This is a motion by the
Respondent for dismissal of the appeal, (i) for failure by the Appellant to
prosecute the appeal with due dispatch, and (ii) for failure by the Appellant
to comply with an order of the Court.
[2]
The hearing of this
motion, which the Appellant did not attend, was held on February 19, 2008. The Appellant sent a request for an adjournment by
electronic means, which I denied at the hearing.
[3]
The Appellant filed a
motion to extend the time for filing her appeal, with a notice of appeal, in
June 2006. The Respondent did not object and an order extending the time was
signed on October 6, 2006.
[4]
On April 23, 2007, the Court Registry wrote to the parties inviting
them to propose a timetable for the various steps in the case.
[5]
On May 23, 2007,
counsel for the Respondent replied to the Registry. In his letter, he said he
had contacted the Appellant on three occasions to agree to a timetable, but had
received no reply from her; he proposed dates for the various steps.
[6]
On May 25, 2007, the Registry wrote to the Appellant asking her to
submit comments before June 15, 2007.
[7]
The Appellant did not
reply to the letter from the Registry, and by Order dated June 18, 2007, this Court set the timetable for the next steps in
the case.
[8]
The Respondent filed
and served her list of documents within the time allowed by the Order of June
18, 2007. The Appellant did not file her list and the Court set a date for a
case management hearing, August 14,
2007.
[9]
Following up on the
hearing on August 14, 2007, the Court made an Order on August 22, 2007. The Order extended the time for completing the
preliminary steps before the hearing of this case. The order set the following
deadlines for completing the preliminary steps:
- September 28, 2007, for
filing the list of documents and serving it on the other party;
- November 30, 2007, for completing the examinations for
discovery;
- December 31, 2007, for
complying with undertakings arising out of the examinations for discovery;
- January 30, 2008, for communicating in writing with the
Hearings Coordinator.
[10]
The Respondent filed
her list of documents in accordance with the Order.
[11]
The Appellant filed a
list of documents on September 28, 2007, but the list of documents was not in
compliance with the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure). It
was also not signed by the Appellant or her counsel of record.
[12]
On October 4, 2007, the Court Registry wrote to Alain Le Bris,
with a copy to the Appellant, confirming that the Registry had received a list
of documents. In the letter, the Registry also stated that the list was not
signed by the Appellant and that Mr. Le Bris was not the
representative on the record and could not be the representative. The Court
therefore concluded, in its letter of October 4, that it was still waiting for
the list of documents, signed by the Appellant.
[13]
By letter dated
October 30, 2007, the Court Registry informed the Appellant that the list
of documents had not been signed by the Appellant or her counsel. In the
letter, the Appellant was also informed that because the Order of the Court had
set September 28, 2007, as the date for filing the list of
documents, the Appellant would have to file a motion with the Court asking for
the timetable to be amended.
[14]
The Respondent examined
the Appellant for discovery on November 8, 2007, and at that examination
the Appellant gave several undertakings, which are listed in Exhibit R‑1
to the sworn statement filed in support of the notice of motion. On November 23, 2007, counsel for the Respondent wrote to the Appellant
enclosing a copy of the list of undertakings. He also reminded her of the
deadline for responding to the undertakings, December 31, 2007. As of the
date of the sworn statement, January 17,
2008, the Appellant had not
responded to the undertakings.
[15]
The Appellant wrote a
letter to counsel for the Respondent on December 31, 2007 (Exhibit R‑2
to the sworn statement filed in support of the motion). The letter seems to cast
doubt over the undertakings given by the Appellant. She concludes by saying:
[TRANSLATION]
For all these reasons, I suggest, in order to bring this examination
to a conclusion, that we meet with Alain Le Bris at the accountant's,
because as you know I had absolutely nothing to do with those reports.
Mr. Le Bris will telephone you next week to make an appointment
with you so that we can finish with this matter.
[16]
The Appellant has not
prosecuted her appeal with due dispatch, and she did not comply with the Order
made on August 22, 2007.
[17]
On examining the Reply
to the Notice of Appeal, we see that there are significant amounts of money in
issue.
[18]
In the circumstances,
it would not be appropriate simply to dismiss the appeal. However, having
regard to the Appellant's conduct, measures need to be taken to move forward on
this case.
Accordingly, the Court orders that:
1. the Appellant produce
and serve on the Respondent, no later than April 4, 2008, a list of
documents in accordance with section 81 of the Tax Court of Canada
Rules (General Procedure);
2. the Appellant respond
to the undertakings arising out of the examinations for discovery, no later
than April 4, 2008, and produce a copy of her response to the undertakings
no later than April 4, 2008;
3. the Appellant pay the
Respondent's costs of the motion, regardless of the outcome of the case, costs
being fixed at $1,000 and payable to the Respondent by certified cheque no
later than April 4, 2008;
4. the Appellant file
proof of payment of the Respondent's costs with the Registry of the Court no
later than April 16, 2008.
The dates set are peremptory. If the
Appellant fails to comply with this Order, the appeal will be dismissed without
further notice or motion for dismissal of the appeal.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada,
this 29th day of February 2008.
"Gaston Jorré"
Translation certified
true
on this 16th day
of April 2008.
Brian McCordick,
Translator
Email this Content