Date: 20070706
Docket: A-377-06
Citation: 2007 FCA 253
CORAM: LÉTOURNEAU
J.A.
PELLETIER
J.A.
TRUDEL J.A.
BETWEEN:
MERVIN
MICHAEL BODNARCHUK
Appellant
and
MINISTER OF
NATIONAL REVENUE
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
TRUDEL J.A.
[1]
On
August 26, 2006, Mervin Michael Bodnarchuk commenced his appeal from an order
of the Federal Court (Gauthier J.). He was found guilty of contempt in regard
to a show cause order and ordered to pay a fine of $1,000 and costs of $600.
[2]
The
grounds of appeal read as follows:
“a) the questions
were not clear and the appellant did not agree to provide answers to at (sic) the
questions.
b) the
circumstances of the case were such that it would be necessary to proceed to
with (sic) a fresh motion for a show cause order then be concerned about cost.
c) the appellant
did provide information to the best of his abilities and that the Canada
Revenue Agency was not satisfied with the answers (negative net worth) and
sought contempt.
d) a deadline
was never imposed by the Court and that providing the requested information any
time thereafter did not warrant contempt.”
[3]
Following
the issue of a Notice of Status Review on May 16, 2007, the appellant filed
submissions to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed for delay.
[4]
The
appellant gives the following reasons for his delay:
a) He
has been involved in a criminal appeal in the British Columbia Court of Appeal;
b) He
cannot afford the cost of the transcripts;
c) He
needs more time to raise money to hire a lawyer.
Therefore, he seeks an
extension until September 7, 2007 to retain counsel and prepare the necessary
documentation.
[5]
The
normal factors in support of the extension, sought by the appellant, can be
summarized as (a) a continuing intention to pursue the appeal; (b) the
existence of an arguable case; (c) a reasonable explanation for the delay; and
(d) the lack of prejudice to the other party [Rosen v. Canada, [2002]
F.C.J. No. 415 (Fed. (C.A.)].
[6]
In
his submissions, the appellant fails to address two questions: Is there a
reasonable explanation for the delay and what practical measure does he
propose to move his appeal forward?
[7]
Between
the filing of his appeal on August 28, 2006 and the Notice of Status Review
dated May 16, 2007, the appellant has shown no interest for his file. The mere
submission that a litigant is dealing with other matters cannot be used to
justify a delay. Otherwise, the time requirements of the Rules would serve no
purpose.
[8]
The
appellant also fails to show that there is any merit to his appeal.
[9]
Courts
are reluctant to dismiss a proceeding for a failure to comply with the rules of
practice when the litigant wishes to proceed, particularly when the litigant is
self-represented.
[10]
However,
there are cases where early dismissal of the appeal is entirely appropriate in
order to avoid an unnecessary and costly hearing.
[11]
In
my opinion, this is a case where the appellant has not shown a sustained
interest for his case and where the appeal has not been shown to have any merit.
[12]
For
these reasons, I would dismiss the appeal with costs.
“Johanne Trudel”
“I
agree
Gilles Létourneau J.A.”
“I agree
J.D. Denis
Pelletier J.A. ”
Email this Content