Date: 20000517
Docket: 98-369-UI
BETWEEN:
MARTINE GARNEAU,
Applicant,
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent.
Reasons for Order
Tardif, J.T.C.C.
[1]
This is a motion for an extension of the time for filing a notice
of appeal.
[2]
The decision to which the motion relates was communicated to the
appellant on February 10, 1998. The same day, she received
another decision concerning the insurability of work she had done
for another employer; in other words, the appellant received two
decisions concerning the insurability of work she had done for
two different employers.
[3]
After receiving the two determinations bearing the same date,
namely February 10, 1998, the appellant filed a notice of appeal
worded as follows:
[TRANSLATION]
St-Prime, April 15, 1998
REVENUE CANADA
Lyne Courcy, Officer
165, rue de la Pointe-aux Lièvres sud
Québec, Quebec
G1K 7L3
Subject:
Appeal
Further to your letter dated February 10, 1998,
I, Martine Garneau, domiciled at 976 rue Principale,
St-Prime, G8J 1V3 (SIN 254-454-242), would like to appeal
your decision.
The reasons for my appeal are that I have never made a false
statement concerning my previous jobs, since the information with
respect to the work I did and was paid for and reported was all
accurate and I have always been an employee.
I would like to attend the hearing, and I ask that it be held in
French. I will be represented by Françoise Gauthier,
solicitor.
I trust that this is satisfactory. Feel free to contact me for
further information.
Martine Garneau
(418) 251-3149
c.c. Jim Lafrenière, Constituency Assistant, Office of
Michel Gauthier
[4]
The notice of appeal in question says nothing about either the
period of time involved or the name of the employer
concerned.
[5]
As a result of that notice of appeal, a hearing was held before
the Honourable Louise Lamarre Proulx on November 5, 1999, and
judgment was rendered on December 16, 1999.
[6]
The trial related solely to the work done for the payer Club
Nautique Roberval Inc. during the periods from May 15 to August
25, 1995, and from April 1 to June 26, 1996.
[7]
Following the judgment, which dealt solely with the work done by
the appellant for Club Nautique Roberval Inc., the appellant
decided to initiate new proceedings, hoping to obtain a hearing
on the insurability of the work she had done for 9010-8150
Québec Inc., which operated Resto-Pub 449, during
the periods from May 15 to August 25, 1995, and from September
18, 1995, to June 21, 1996. That explains the motion
for an extension of the time for filing a notice of appeal.
[8]
The Court must therefore basically dispose of the appellant's
motion, since the judgment rendered by the Honourable Louise
Lamarre Proulx resolved the question of the subject of the
appellant's notice of appeal dated April 15, 1998, by
deciding that it concerned only the work done for Club Nautique
Roberval Inc. from May 15 to August 25, 1995, and from April 1 to
June 22, 1996.
[9]
The motion for an extension of time was filed on January 10,
2000, and relates to a decision communicated on February 10,
1998. In other words, it was filed 23 months later.
[10] The
strict time limit for filing a notice of appeal following the
communication of a determination was 90 days. At the time in
question, it was possible to obtain more time than the allotted
90 days on the express condition that an application for that
purpose be made within the initial 90-day time limit.
[11] Although
the provisions on obtaining additional time have been amended and
have become more flexible in that it is now possible to make a
motion for additional time within 90 days after the expiration of
the initial 90 days following communication of the decision, the
appellant does not qualify.
[12] First of
all, the decision that gave rise to the motion predates the new
provisions, which came into force in October 1998.
[13] Moreover,
even if the applicable law had been that set out in the new
provisions, the appellant's motion was still filed out of
time. The time limit is a strict one, which means that failure to
comply with the time limit laid down in the Act is
fatal.
[14] For these
reasons, the application for an extension of time is
dismissed.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 17th day of May 2000.
"Alain Tardif"
J.T.C.C.
Translation certified true on this 5th day of January
2001.
Erich Klein, Revisor
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
98-369(UI)
BETWEEN:
MARTINE GARNEAU,
Applicant,
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent.
Motion heard on May 9, 2000, at Chicoutimi,
Quebec, by
the Honourable Judge Alain Tardif
Appearances
For the
Applicant:
The Applicant herself
Counsel for the
Respondent:
Simon Petit
ORDER
The motion for an extension of time is dismissed.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 17th day of May 2000.
J.T.C.C.
Translation certified true
on this 5th day of January 2001.
Erich Klein, Revisor
Email this Content