Date: 20070109
Docket: A-438-06
Citation: 2007 FCA 8
Present: RICHARD C.J.
BETWEEN:
Jolly Farmer Products Inc.
2005-1804(IT)G
Rebecca A. Adams 2005-2096(IT)G
Timothy L. Adams 2005-2117(IT)G
Annie E. Best 2005-2097(IT)G
Nathan D. Best 2005-2086(IT)G
Norton D. Best 2005-2087(IT)G
Marion Billmann 2005-2098(IT)G
Michel Billmann 2005-2099(IT)G
David O. Carter 2005-2101(IT)G
Jason L. Carter 2005-2086(IT)G
Madeleine Carter 2005-2118(IT)G
Martha A. Chesher 2005-2076(IT)G
Gregory A. Cox 2005-2088(IT)G
Ann Darrow 2005-1648(IT)G
Freedom Darrow 2005-1649(IT)G
James Darrow 2005-1651(IT)G
John Darrow 2005-1639(IT)G
Mary Elisabeth Darrow 2005-1670(IT)G
Peter Darrow 2005-1641(IT)G
Christopher English 2005-1659(IT)G
Daniel English 2005-1632(IT)G
David English 2005-1638(IT)G
Joel A. English 2005-1660(IT)G
Mary L. English 2005-1652(IT)G
Rebekah English 2005-1633(IT)G
Robert English 2005-1635(IT)G
Ruth English 2005-1661(IT)G
Sarah English 2005-1654(IT)G
Sue Ellen English 2005-1665(IT)G
Susannah G. English 2005-1642(IT)G
Sarah Eversfield 2005-1656(IT)G
Joanne M. Haughn 2005-1666(IT)G
Charity Jacob 2005-1667(IT)G
Hugh R. Jacob 2005-1668(IT)G
Michael S. Jacob 2005-1657(IT)G
Nancy Jacob 2005-1658(IT)G
Shama Jacob 2005-2116(IT)G
Timothy A. Jacob 2005-2089(IT)G
David Keeler 2005-1644(IT)G
Elisabeth Keeler 2005-2057(IT)G
Philip M. Keeler 2005-1646(IT)G
R. Joy Keeler 2005-1645(IT)G
Samuel J. Keeler 2005-1669(IT)G
Shura Keeler 2005-1647(IT)G
Grace Livingstone 2005-2079(IT)G
Kirsten A. Livingstone 2005-2080(IT)G
Stephen Livingstone 2005-2081(IT)G
Timothy J. Livingstone 2005-2084(IT)G
Ellen McDougal 2005-2094(IT)G
Joan Ogden 2005-2077(IT)G
Elisabeth A. Pinter 2005-2069(IT)G
Joseph Pinter 2005-2070(IT)G
Margaret Pinter 2005-2071(IT)G
Oliver Pinter 2005-2072(IT)G
Joyce A. Vandervalk 2005-2073(IT)G
Paul David Vandervalk 2005-2074(IT)G
Barbara Weir 2005-2063(IT)G
Benjamin C. Weir 2005-2063(IT)G
Brian Weir 2005-2064(IT)G
Burton L. Weir 2005-2065(IT)G
Gregory S. Weir 2005-2066(IT)G
Jeffrey J. Weir 2005-2067(IT)G
Joy E. Weir 2005-2068(IT)G
The Estate of Robert C. English
2005-1653(IT)G
The Estate of George Eversfield
2005-1655(IT)G
The Estate of Katherine S. Talcott
2005-2095(IT)G
Appellants
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
Heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on January
8, 2007.
Order delivered at Ottawa,
Ontario, on January
9, 2007.
REASONS
FOR ORDER BY: RICHARD
C.J.
Date: 20070109
Docket: A-438-06
Citation: 2007 FCA 8
Present: RICHARD
C.J.
BETWEEN:
Jolly Farmer Products Inc. 2005-1804(IT)G
Rebecca A. Adams 2005-2096(IT)G
Timothy L. Adams 2005-2117(IT)G
Annie E. Best 2005-2097(IT)G
Nathan D. Best 2005-2086(IT)G
Norton D. Best 2005-2087(IT)G
Marion Billmann 2005-2098(IT)G
Michel Billmann 2005-2099(IT)G
David O. Carter 2005-2101(IT)G
Jason L. Carter 2005-2086(IT)G
Madeleine Carter 2005-2118(IT)G
Martha A. Chesher 2005-2076(IT)G
Gregory A. Cox 2005-2088(IT)G
Ann Darrow 2005-1648(IT)G
Freedom Darrow 2005-1649(IT)G
James Darrow 2005-1651(IT)G
John Darrow 2005-1639(IT)G
Mary Elisabeth Darrow 2005-1670(IT)G
Peter Darrow 2005-1641(IT)G
Christopher English 2005-1659(IT)G
Daniel English 2005-1632(IT)G
David English 2005-1638(IT)G
Joel A. English 2005-1660(IT)G
Mary L. English 2005-1652(IT)G
Rebekah English 2005-1633(IT)G
Robert English 2005-1635(IT)G
Ruth English 2005-1661(IT)G
Sarah English 2005-1654(IT)G
Sue Ellen English 2005-1665(IT)G
Susannah G. English 2005-1642(IT)G
Sarah Eversfield 2005-1656(IT)G
Joanne M. Haughn 2005-1666(IT)G
Charity Jacob 2005-1667(IT)G
Hugh R. Jacob 2005-1668(IT)G
Michael S. Jacob 2005-1657(IT)G
Nancy Jacob 2005-1658(IT)G
Shama Jacob 2005-2116(IT)G
Timothy A. Jacob 2005-2089(IT)G
David Keeler 2005-1644(IT)G
Elisabeth Keeler 2005-2057(IT)G
Philip M. Keeler 2005-1646(IT)G
R. Joy Keeler 2005-1645(IT)G
Samuel J. Keeler 2005-1669(IT)G
Shura Keeler 2005-1647(IT)G
Grace Livingstone 2005-2079(IT)G
Kirsten A. Livingstone 2005-2080(IT)G
Stephen Livingstone 2005-2081(IT)G
Timothy J. Livingstone 2005-2084(IT)G
Ellen McDougal 2005-2094(IT)G
Joan Ogden 2005-2077(IT)G
Elisabeth A. Pinter 2005-2069(IT)G
Joseph Pinter 2005-2070(IT)G
Margaret Pinter 2005-2071(IT)G
Oliver Pinter 2005-2072(IT)G
Joyce A. Vandervalk 2005-2073(IT)G
Paul David Vandervalk 2005-2074(IT)G
Barbara Weir 2005-2063(IT)G
Benjamin C. Weir 2005-2063(IT)G
Brian Weir 2005-2064(IT)G
Burton L. Weir 2005-2065(IT)G
Gregory S. Weir 2005-2066(IT)G
Jeffrey J. Weir 2005-2067(IT)G
Joy E. Weir 2005-2068(IT)G
The Estate of Robert C. English
2005-1653(IT)G
The Estate of George Eversfield
2005-1655(IT)G
The Estate of Katherine S. Talcott
2005-2095(IT)G
Appellants
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
RICHARD C.J.
[1]
This is a motion brought by the Appellants for a stay of the order of Justice Diane Campbell
of the Tax Court of Canada dated September 29, 2006 (2005-1804(IT)G) pursuant
to subsection 50(1) of the Federal Courts Act and Rule 398 of the Federal
Courts Rules (the “Order”).
[2]
Jolly Farmer Products Inc. appealed its
reassessments for the 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003 taxation years on
May 30, 2005 (“Corporate Appeal”).
[3]
Sixty-five (65) shareholders of Jolly Farmer
Products Inc. appealed their reassessments for the 2000 and 2001 taxation years
between May 17 and June 20, 2005 (“Shareholder Appeals”).
[4]
The Respondent filed replies to the various
appeals between August 24 and September 2, 2005.
[5]
By order of Court dated February 9, 2006, the
Tax Court ordered, inter alia, that (a) the parties file and serve the
List of Documents by June 30, 2006; and (b) examinations for discovery be
completed by October 2, 2006.
[6]
The Respondent filed and served her Lists of
Documents between June 26 and June 28, 2006. The Appellants filed
and served their Lists of Documents on June 30, 2006.
[7]
On August 22, 2006, the Appellants filed a
motion for an order, inter alia, that the Shareholder Appeals be stayed
until the determination of the Corporate Appeal.
[8]
In her Order of September 29, 2006, Justice
Campbell ordered, inter alia, that the Corporate Appeal proceed ahead of
the Shareholder Appeals, the hearing of the Shareholder Appeals commence
immediately after the hearing of the Corporate Appeal and examination for
discoveries be completed by March 30, 2007. It was further ordered that the
parties communicate with the Hearings Coordinator in writing on or before May
30, 2007, to advise the Court whether the case will settle, whether a
pre-hearing conference would be beneficial, or whether a hearing date should be
set.
[9]
The Appellants filed an appeal with this Court
on October 6, 2006, appealing the Order of Justice Campbell.
[10]
On December 22, 2006, the Respondent’s counsel
wrote to the Appellants’ counsel requesting the Appellants’ available dates for
examination for discovery.
[11]
On January 3, 2007, the Appellants filed a
motion with this Court for an order staying the Order of Justice Campbell dated
September 29, 2006 and, in particular, that part of the Order requiring that
all examinations for discoveries be completed no later than March 30, 2007.
[12]
The Order which is the subject of the stay
application and which is under appeal before this Court is an interlocutory
order on procedural matters that is not determinative of the Corporate Appeal
and the 65 Shareholder Appeals before the Tax Court of Canada.
[13]
The relevant test to be applied to an
application for a stay is set out in RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (A.G.),
[1994] 1 S.C.R. 311. The onus lies with the Appellants to show that there is a
serious issue to be tried, that they will suffer irreparable harm and that the
balance of convenience favours the granting of a stay.
Serious
Issue
[14]
The Appellants raised 3 grounds of appeal in their
Notice of Appeal. They are that Justice Campbell erred in law by failing to
(a) apply the correct legal test in determining the Motion before the Tax
Court, pursuant to Rule 26 of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General
Procedure); (b) apply Rule 4(1) of the Tax Court of Canada Rules
(General Procedure); and, (c) exercise her discretion judicially in
determining the Motion before the Tax Court.
[15]
For the purposes of this motion, I will proceed
on the basis that the Appellant has established a serious question to be tried.
Irreparable
Harm
[16]
In RJR-MacDonald, it was held that
“‘[i]rreparable’ refers to the nature of the harm suffered rather than its
magnitude. It is harm which either cannot be quantified in monetary terms or
which cannot be cured, usually because one party cannot collect damages from
the other” (paragraph 59).
[17]
Here, the Appellants argue that, if the stay of
proceeding is not granted, they will suffer irreparable harm in that the
Appellants would have to schedule and conduct 65 discoveries, thereby
essentially loosing any advantage they seek to gain by appealing the Order of
the Tax Court of Canada and rendering the appeal to this Court academic.
[18]
The determination of the Corporate Appeal will
not dispose of the Shareholder Appeals. If the Appellants’ appeal to this
Court is successful, the discoveries of the 65 shareholders would be not made
nugatory. The discoveries of the 65 shareholders would still be required for
the subsequent hearing of the Shareholder Appeals.
[19]
There is no evidence that the completion of
discoveries of the 65 shareholders before the Appellants’ appeal to this Court is
heard will cause irreparable harm to the Appellants or a monetary loss that
cannot be compensated for in costs.
[20]
Accordingly, the Appellants have not shown that
they will suffer irreparable harm if the stay is not granted.
Balance of Convenience
[21]
The balance of convenience is a determination of
which of the two parties will suffer the greater harm from the granting or
refusal of the stay, pending a decision on the appeal.
[22]
The Appellants submit that compliance with the
Order will result in scheduling and completing 66 examinations for
discovery whereas granting a stay will simply delay proceeding with the 65
Shareholder Appeals until the appeal of the Order is heard.
[23]
The Reassessments for the Corporate Appellant
relate to 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003 taxation years, the
Reassessments for the Shareholder Appellants relate to 2000 and 2001 taxation
years, and the Corporate and Shareholder Appeals were commenced in 2005. The Respondent is entitled to
conduct an examination for discovery of all parties to the Shareholder Appeals
prior to the hearing of these appeals. These discoveries would have to be
completed regardless of the outcome of the Corporate Appeal. In these
circumstances, the balance of convenience favours that these proceedings be
completed in a reasonable period of time.
[24]
There is also a public interest that judicial proceedings
be completed within a reasonable period of time.
[25]
Accordingly,
the Appellants’ motion for a stay of the Order will be dismissed with costs.
"J.
Richard"
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-438-06
STYLE OF CAUSE: JOLLY FARMER PRODUCTS INC. ET AL
v.
HER
MAJESTY THE QUEEN
PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa
DATE OF HEARING: January 8, 2007
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: Richard C.J.
DATED: January 9, 2007
APPEARANCES:
|
Mr. John Townsend
|
FOR THE
APPELLANT
|
|
Mr. Cecil
Woon
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|
SOLICITORS
OF RECORD:
|
Cox & Palmer, Fredericton, N.B.
|
FOR THE
APPELLANT
|
|
John Sims,
Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Halifax, N.S.
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|
Email this Content