Docket: 2013-2227(IT)APP
BETWEEN:
KIRK HAYNES,
Applicant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
____________________________________________________________________
Application heard on July 5, 2013 at Edmonton, Alberta
By: The Honourable
Justice Judith M. Woods
Appearances:
|
Agent for
the Applicant:
|
Robert
Haynes
|
|
Counsel for the Respondent:
|
Robert Neilson
|
____________________________________________________________________
ORDER
The application for an order to extend the time within
which an appeal in respect of assessments made under the Income Tax Act for
the 2008 and 2009 taxation years may be instituted is dismissed. Each party
shall bear their own costs.
Signed at Toronto, Ontario this 12th day of July 2013.
“J. M. Woods”
Citation: 2013 TCC 229
Date: 20130712
Docket: 2013-2227(IT)APP
BETWEEN:
KIRK HAYNES,
Applicant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR ORDER
Woods J.
[1]
Kirk Haynes applies for an
extension of time to institute an appeal in respect of assessments made under
the Income Tax Act for the 2008 and 2009 taxation years.
[2]
The Crown opposes the application
on the grounds that Mr. Haynes has not demonstrated (1) that there are
reasonable grounds for the appeal, and (2) that it would be just and equitable
to grant the application. These are two of the conditions to be satisfied
before this type of application can be granted (subsection 167(5) of the Act).
[3]
Subsection 167(5) provides:
167.(5) When order to be made - No order shall be
made under this section unless
(a)
the application is made within one year after the expiration of the time limited
by section 169 for appealing; and
(b)
the taxpayer demonstrates that
(i) within the time otherwise limited by
section 169 for appealing the taxpayer
(A) was unable to act or to instruct
another to act in the taxpayer's name, or
(B) had a bona fide intention to appeal,
(ii) given the reasons set out in the
application and the circumstances of the case, it would be just and
equitable to grant the application,
(iii) the application was made as soon as
circumstances permitted, and
(iv) there are reasonable grounds for the
appeal.
(Emphasis added)
[4]
Mr. Haynes’ father, Robert Haynes,
represented the applicant at the hearing. One of his main arguments in response
to the Crown’s submissions was to suggest that the Income Tax Act had
not been validly enacted.
[5]
In my view, it is not appropriate
for the Court to consider this frivolous argument. I would comment that the
argument was raised for the first time at the hearing and the Crown did not
have a chance to properly respond. In addition, no support for the submission
was given. I would also note that section 18 of the Canada Evidence Act
requires that judicial notice be taken of all Acts of Parliament. It would be
an abuse of the Court’s resources to further consider the argument in these
circumstances.
[6]
Turning to the submissions of the Crown,
I would agree that the applicant has not demonstrated reasonable grounds for
the appeal. Robert Haynes stated at the hearing that the only item in dispute
is the imposition of gross negligence penalties. That is not clear on the face
of the notice of appeal, and in any event there is nothing in the material
before me, or stated at the hearing, that would reasonably support a conclusion
that the penalties are improper.
[7]
In particular, the notice of
appeal states that the Crown has the burden of proof and that the Crown has not
provided any facts. It also asserts that the Minister was wrong to disallow a
business loss, but the applicant is not seeking a deduction for the business
loss. This does not demonstrate that the applicant has reasonable grounds for
the appeal, as required by the legislation.
[8]
I also agree with the submission
of the Crown that the applicant has not demonstrated that it would be just and
equitable to allow the application. At the hearing, Robert Haynes requested
that I provide a copy of the document that ratifies the Income Tax Act,
the date of that ratification and the relevant signatures. He stated that he is
trained in income tax law and that his knowledge is compatible with the
approach taken by an organization known as Fiscal Arbitrators.
[9]
The approach taken by the
applicant in this application has been described in detail in Meads v Meads,
2012 ABQB 571. In that decision, Rooke A.C.J. describes this type of litigant
as a vexatious litigant and describes the tactics as follows, at para 1:
[1] […] These
persons employ a collection of techniques and arguments promoted and sold by
“gurus” (as hereafter defined) to disrupt court operations and to attempt to
frustrate the legal rights of governments, corporation, and individuals.
[10]
Taking the entire
circumstances into account, the applicant has not demonstrated that it would be
just and equitable to grant the
application. To the contrary, I would conclude that it would be an abuse of
Court resources to do so.
[11]
The application will be dismissed.
Each party shall bear their own costs.
Signed at Toronto, Ontario this 12th day of July
2013.
“J. M. Woods”
CITATION: 2013 TCC 229
COURT FILE NO.: 2013-2227(IT)APP
STYLE OF CAUSE: KIRK HAYNES and
HER
MAJESTY THE QUEEN
PLACE OF HEARING: Edmonton, Alberta
DATE OF HEARING: July 5, 2013
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: The
Honourable Justice J.M. Woods
DATE OF ORDER: July 12, 2013
APPEARANCES:
|
Agent for the
Applicant:
|
Robert Haynes
|
|
Counsel for the
Respondent:
|
Robert Neilson
|
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For the Applicant:
Name: n/a
Firm:
For the
Respondent: William F. Pentney
Deputy
Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
Email this Content