Date: 20050927
Docket: A-148-04
Citation: 2005 FCA 307
Present: PELLETIER J.A.
BETWEEN:
RODNEY C. STICKLE
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
"Dealt with in writing without appearance of parties."
Order delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on September 27, 2005.
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: PELLETIER J.A.
Date: 20050927
Docket: A-148-04
Citation: 2005 FCA 307
Present: PELLETIER J.A.
BETWEEN:
RODNEY C. STICKLE
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
PELLETIER J.A.
[1] I have before me Mr. Stickle's notice of motion which, as amended by order of the Court, seeks leave to file his Appellant Response Memorandum and the affidavit of Rodney Charles Stickle, the motion record of the respondent (in response to Mr. Stickle's motion), as well as Mr. Stickle's letter to the Chief Administrator dated September 8, 2005.
[2] The notice of appeal in this matter provides as follows:
THE APPELLANT SAYS THAT:
1- On hearing the Notice of Motion on February 18, 2004 the Tax Court of Canada took the position that it can make Orders but does not have the statutory jurisdiction to ensure that its Orders, on motion, are then duly followed;
2- Therefore, the appeal is being made to correct the fact that The Tax Court of Canada cannot police its own orders.
THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL are as follows:
i- Those as set out in the Appellants Notice of Motion to The Tax Court of Canada, some particulars of which are as follows:
....
[3] The particulars consist of a list of heads of relief sought in the motion. The notice of motion which gave rise to the order under appeal is based on the following grounds:
"(a) The Respondent's non-compliance with terms contained in the Amendment of Consent Judgment marked as Exhibit "A" in the affidavit of Rodney C. Stickle; and
(b) if the Respondent did comply with Exhibit "A" then the Respondent failed to serve the Applicant with its reconsiderations and reassessments."
[4] The appellant filed a memorandum of fact, and a separate memorandum of law. In his memorandum of fact, the appellant made various factual assertions as to the circumstances leading to the amended consent to judgment, the terms of which, according to Mr. Stickle, were not complied with by the respondent. This prompted counsel for the respondent to make a motion seeking leave to file a supplementary appeal book containing the affidavit of Pat Grant which, according to the terms of the motion, was before the Tax Court Judge when he rendered the order under appeal. If that is the case, one is left to wonder why the affidavit of Pat Grant was not included in the original appeal book, whose contents were apparently agreed to by counsel for both parties.
[5] Mr. Stickle objects to certain representations of fact which are made in the affidavit of Pat Grant and in the respondent's memorandum of fact and law. By this motion he seeks to put into the record further material which goes into the details of Mr. Stickle's dealings with the respondent over the years. In essence, Mr. Stickle seeks to revisit the facts which gave rise to the amended consent to judgment which he says was not complied with. In addition, he seeks to put in further affidavits to show serious lawyer misconduct in the handling of this file.
[6] The appeal which is before the Court deals with two issues: the Tax Court of Canada's jurisdiction to enforce its own orders and, in the alternative, the legal consequences of the failure to bring to Mr. Stickle's attention the Minister's reconsideration of his tax liability and any notices of reassessment issued as a result of that review. Neither of these questions requires the Court to delve into the matters which gave rise to the amended consent to judgment which was signed more than 10 years ago.
[7] The notice of motion is dismissed. The Appellant Response Memorandum and the affidavit of Rodney Charles Stickle are to be returned to Mr. Stickle.
[8] In his letter to the Chief Administrator, Mr. Stickle seeks certain assistance in dealing with this matter. He is upset at the fact that Justice Canada sends him things by mail and "before I even get them, they jump on the bandwagon and send in another paper." Mr. Stickle seeks a direction from this Court to stop this. It is difficult to know what needs to be stopped. The Rules provide for service by mail as well as the date on which service by mail is effective. See Rules 140 and 141. They also set out that where documents are served by mail, they may be filed before the day on which service is effective. See Rule 142. And as for sending in "another paper", Mr. Stickle's complaint seems to arise from the fact that the respondent filed a motion record in response to the motion which is before the Court. The respondent was entitled to do so. Consequently, there is no direction to be given with respect to this issue.
[9] Mr. Stickle also seeks a direction that the respondent's latest motion record "stand still" while he prepares and submits "FRESH MOTION LEAVE". As noted above, the respondent's motion record is simply the respondent's response to Mr. Stickle's motion seeking leave to file his Appellant Response Memorandum. It has been considered in the disposition of Mr. Stickle's motion.
[10] Along the same lines, Mr. Stickle asks "Please. No more paper except for a direction granting me leave to set the appeal record on a very clear straight path ...". Mr. Stickle's frustration is palpable but it appears to arise from a misconception as to the scope of the appeal. As noted above, the issues raised by the appeal are narrow. This Court cannot, under the guise of disposing of an appeal from a decision made in 2004, reopen a consent judgment which was signed in 1995. I am unable to issue the direction which Mr. Stickle seeks.
[11] Given that a requisition for hearing has been filed, the matter should be set down for hearing.
"J.D. Denis Pelletier"
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-148-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: RODNEY C. STICKLE and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
MOTION DEALT WITH IN WRITING WITHOUT APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: PELLETIER J.A.
DATED: September 27, 2005
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY:
Mr. Rodney C. Stickle Appellant on his own behalf
Mr. John O' Callaghan For the respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
John H. Sims, Q.C. For the respondent
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
Email this Content