Rajah v. Canada, 2006 FCA 361

Date: 20061108

Docket: A-13-06

Citation: 2006 FCA 361

 

Presents:        NOËL J.A.

                        NADON J.A.

                        SEXTON J.A.

 

BETWEEN:

SAHADEVAN E. RAJAH

Appellant

and

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Respondent

 

 

 

Dealt with in writing without appearance of parties.

 

Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on November 8, 2006.

 

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:                                                                             NOËL J.A.

 

CONCURRED BY:                                                                                                     NADON J.A.

                                                                                                                                    SEXTON J.A.

 

Date: 20061108

Docket: A-13-06

Citation: 2006 FCA 361

 

Presents:        NOËL J.A.

                        NADON J.A.

                        SEXTON J.A.

 

BETWEEN:

SAHADEVAN E. RAJAH

Appellant

and

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Respondent

 

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

NOËL J.A.

[1]               A Notice of status review was issued on September 26, 2006 which required the appellant to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed for delay.

 

[2]               The next step in the proceeding is the filing of an agreement as to the contents of the Appeal Book.

 

[3]               On October 13, 2006, the appellant filed a Response to the Notice of status review which I have reproduced in its entirety:

The appellant submits to the Federal Court of Appeal that the delay caused by the appellant is due to onerous disadvantages faced by the appellant and the undue hardships faced by the appellant as a result of the Tax Court judgment on December 12, 2005.

 

The appellant is in no position to conduct the appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal and humbly requests the Court to grant a request by the appellant to have the judgment by the Tax Court quashed and a new trial granted for the following reasons.

 

A.    The appellant was prejudiced by the Tax Court during trial and not allowed to submit numerous pertinent documents which would have substantiated the appellant’s cause of appeal.

 

B.    The respondent submitted numerous documents which were given to the appellant and the Court in a binder at trial that were not previously disclosed to the appellant or the Tax Court (as per the respondent’s List of documents).

 

C.    The appellant requested for a postponement of the trial due to the death of a close family friend on August 20, 2005; but was not granted. The trial was September 19 and 20 of 2005. The appellant’s key witness’s brother was killed in the accident. The appellant was not of sound mind to conduct an appeal due to depressed emotions of the loss, and the fact that it rekindled deep emotional sadness for the appellant, whose own brother was tragically killed in an accident on August 23, 1986.

 

Due to the reasons mentioned above, the appellant humbly request that the Federal Court of Appeal quash the judgment of the Tax Court and a new trial be set at the Tax Court.

 

The appellant will be away for an overseas business trip from October 15, 2006 and a scheduled return date has not been set. The appellant will contact the Court upon return to Canada.

 

Dated at Calgary, Alberta this 13 day of October 2006.

 

[4]               Quite aside from the fact that the grounds now advanced by the appellant are not set out in his Notice of appeal, it is clear that the Court cannot accede to the request and quash the judgment of the Tax Court of Canada at this stage on the basis suggested by the appellant. It is also apparent, based on the appellant’s own admission that he is not in a position to pursue the appeal.

 

[5]               I would therefore dismiss the appeal for delay.

“Marc Noël”

“I agree

            M. Nadon J.A.”

“I agree

            J. Edgar Sexton J.A.”

 

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

 

NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

 

 

 

DOCKET:                                                                              A-13-06

 

STYLE OF CAUSE:                                                              SAHADEVAN E. RAJAH and

                                                                                                HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

 

 

MOTION DEALT WITH IN WRITING WITHOUT APPEARANCE OF PARTIES

 

 

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:                                     NOËL J.A.

CONCURRED IN BY:                                                         NADON J.A.

                                                                                                SEXTON J.A.

 

DATED:                                                                                 November 8, 2006

 

 

WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY:

 

 

SAHADEVAN E. RAJAH	FOR  THE APPELLANT / APPLICANT
JULIE ROGERS-GLABUSH	FOR THE RESPONDENT

 

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

 

	FOR  THE APPELLANT / APPLICANT
JOHN H. SIMS, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada Edmonton, Alberta	FOR THE RESPONDENT