Citation: 2014 TCC 110
Date: 20140409
Docket: 2012-1211(IT)G
BETWEEN:
ROBERT P. HARRIS,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent;
Docket: 2012-2192(IT)G
AND BETWEEN:
SUSAN L. HARRIS,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR ORDER
(Edited from the transcript of Reasons for Order delivered orally from the
Bench on February 4, 2014 at Ottawa, Canada)
Campbell J.
[1]
There are two matters
before me concerning the appeals of Mr. and Mrs. Harris.
[2]
The Respondent had
brought a motion in each of these appeals to dismiss both of them for the
delays.
[3]
The transcript would
show the history that Respondent Counsel, Mr. Warren, outlined, but briefly,
throughout these appeals and until today, Mr. and Mrs. Harris have been
self-represented.
[4]
There was an Order by
Justice Jorré and a timetable given in this matter, on November 7, 2012 and dates
for examinations were set.
[5]
Mr. Warren issued
Notices to Attend for those examinations in January of 2013.
[6]
The examinations,
according to the documents in front of me, were set for February 25th, 2013.
[7]
Mr. Harris advised the
Respondent that Ms. Harris would not be attending those examinations and, at
the examinations, Mr. Harris simply refused to answer any of the questions put
to him.
[8]
This gave rise to a motion
similar to the present one by the Respondent asking that the appeals be
dismissed.
[9]
That resulted in a second Order by Justice
Valerie Miller, dated June 20, 2013, and in that Order she established new
steps, including a new date for completion of the examinations, which was
November 29, 2013. Costs were awarded.
[10]
The last paragraph of
that Order, in fact, says “If the Appellant fails to comply with the amended
Timetable Order, the Respondent will bring a motion for dismissal of his appeal.”
[11]
That is where we are at
again today.
[12]
The Respondent issued Notices
to Attend the examinations.
[13]
Both parties attended, however, in response to
all of the questions, they read from a pre-prepared statement, which was to the
effect “an undertaking to gather the requested information subject to
consulting counsel in respect to my Charter of Rights.”
[14]
That was the response
given even when asked such simple and direct questions as to whether, for
example, it was their signature on the return, what year they were appealing
and were they operating a business?
[15]
Subsequent to that, the
examinations were adjourned. There were, according to Mr. Warren, numerous e-mails
back and forth respecting the deadlines for undertakings and compliance with
the Court Order. I have reviewed those e-mails.
[16]
Mr. Warren was clear with
the Appellants that there had been disclosure of the documents, that it was not
a criminal matter and that only their reassessments were before this Court.
[17]
The Respondent brought
the two motions to dismiss, a motion in each matter, and that is why we are
here today.
[18]
Up until this morning,
the record showed that Mr. Harris was representing himself and this morning he
came in with counsel.
[19]
Ms. Harris does not
have counsel today, and provided no comments in respect to Mr. Warren’s
submissions.
[20]
Basically, Ms.
Christian, the solicitor for Mr. Harris, contended that, because he is
self-represented, he confused the concepts of a criminal proceeding and
criminal matters with the civil matter, which is the reassessment that is
before this Court. She also stated that potentially there could be a Charter
issue.
[21]
Generally, as indicated
in my remarks earlier during the hearing of the motions, I have a level of
comfort when I have counsel come in on a motion such as this, and advise that
she is representing the Appellants or one of them. This would suggest to me
that if she is unsure if she can represent both Appellants and is asking until
the end of the week to ascertain that, that in addition she would suggest something
to the Court in terms of these undertakings the Appellants gave by way of this
standard response, that she would provide dates, perhaps, for turnaround on
further examinations and undertakings and that she would address the costs
issue. None of this was addressed by Ms. Christian, the counsel.
[22]
In fact, I gathered
from some of her remarks that she may have been retained only for today’s
motions and not for the entire matter, even as it relates to Mr. Harris
alone.
[23]
She did say, and the
transcript would show, that she might represent one or both of them if there
was not a conflict, or possibly another counsel might be conducting the matter.
[24]
That leaves me very
little comfort that this matter will not appear back in this Court at some
point down the road, with the very same history presented for the third time.
[25]
I believe that the
reading of that response at the examination is an indication of the Appellants’
attempt, continued attempt, to thwart the processes of this Court and frustrate
the processes to take up valuable time and resources when there are taxpayers
that are self-represented and wish to move their matters along swiftly.
[26]
Mr. Harris and Mrs.
Harris have had ample time, when I look at the history of this file, to have
hired counsel long before this morning.
[27]
If they had issues, if
they were not sure on matters, they had ample opportunity to get instructions
from an accountant, a lawyer, someone, before today’s motions in front of me
and to suggest future timelines for completion of steps.
[28]
It appears that with
their response at the examinations, they wanted time to look at these
undertakings that they had given. There is no indication they have done so.
[29]
Therefore, I am going
to dismiss both the appeals and I am combining the matters and I am going to
award $2,500 to the Respondent, payable forthwith, in both of these matters.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada this 9th day of April 2014.
“Diane Campbell”
Email this Content