Wetston
J.
(orally):—
I
will
state
that
this
is
a
motion
for
an
adjournment
of
what
is
now
a
dated
tax
case.
The
Associate
Chief
Justice
by
order
dated
September
7,
1994
denied
a
motion
in
writing
to
adjourn
this
matter.
The
materials
before
the
Associate
Chief
Justice
are
essentially
the
same
as
the
materials
before
the
Court
today.
There
were
some
additional
oral
submissions
provided
by
counsel,
but
no
further
evidence
was
provided
to
the
Court
to
justify
an
adjournment
or
to
justify
an
order
different
than
the
decision
of
the
Associate
Chief
Justice
of
September
7,
1994.
On
September
8,
today,
by
oral
motion
the
plaintiff’s
counsel
requested
the
adjournment
once
again.
The
claims
involve
the
taxation
years
of
1977,
1978
and
1979;
those
are
the
taxation
years
that
are
in
issue
before
the
Court.
The
judgment
of
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada
was
rendered
in
November
of
1984.
Counsel
for
the
defendant
indicated
that
the
joint
application
was
filed
in
the
fall
of
1993.
It
appears
that
the
main
witness
in
the
case
before
the
Court
is
the
taxpayer
himself,
Mr.
Kenneth
J.
Byron.
He
is
unable
to
proceed
today
due
to
some
form
of
stress-related
illness
or
anxiety
for
which
he
is
presently
under
treatment.
The
main
evidence
before
the
Court
besides
Mr.
Byron's
own
evidence
is
that
of
a
letter
from
a
Dr.
Evans
who
appears
to
be
his
general
practitioner,
his
full
name
is
Dr.
William
Evans.
And
by
letter
dated
September
6,
1994,
Dr.
Evans
states
that,
in
his
words,
"Apparently
Mr.
Byron
has
an
upcoming
case
that
is
causing
him
a
great
deal
of
anxiety."
He
obviously
is
being
presently
treated
for
this
condition
and
is
taking
some
form
of
Anxiolytic
medication
which
Mr.
Raynor,
for
the
plaintiff,
indicates
is
for
anxiety.
There
is
no
evidence
whatsoever
as
to
whether
or
not,
with
or
without
such
medication,
Mr.
Byron
will
ever
be
able
to
proceed
to
trial.
Counsel
for
the
defendant
relies
on
this
as
one
of
the
main
reasons
for
opposing
the
adjournment.
Mr.
Raynor,
counsel
for
the
plaintiff,
notes
that
he
is,
as
indicated
previously,
the
principal
witness
in
this
matter.
Again
Mr.
Raynor
notes
that
Dr.
Evans
does
not
indicate
whether
or
if
this
matter
can
proceed.
Counsel
for
the
defendant,
the
Minister,
also
notes
the
failure
of
the
plaintiff
to
file
an
expert
affidavit
on
the
part
of
the
respondent
pursuant
to
the
rules.
While
there
was
some
discussion
of
that
matter
and
while
it
may
not
be
the
sole
issue
determining
the
matter
of
the
adjournment,
the
Court
would
note
that
it
would
appear
that
an
expert
opinion
was
going
to
be
offered
and
no
expert
affidavit
was
filed
in
accordance
with
the
rules
of
the
Court.
It
is
also
the
Court’s
understanding
that
this
witness
was
to
give
an
opinion
regarding
the
commercial
viability
of
the
operations.
Now,
in
these
matters,
obviously
a
balance
needs
to
be
struck
between
the
interests
of
the
parties,
the
Minister
and
the
plaintiff,
to
proceed
with
the
action.
But
obviously,
an
important
consideration
in
these
matters
is
also
the
necessity
to
respect
the
scheduling
of
the
Court
that
may
be
required
in
hearing
these
matters.
As
indicated
previously,
a
joint
application
was
filed
in
1993.
And
while
the
matter
only
recently
appeared
to
have
come
to
the
attention
of
counsel
for
the
plaintiff,
it
does
appear
that
the
evidence
before
the
Court
is
deficient
in
determin-
ing
whether
or
not
Mr.
Byron
will
ever
at
least
be
able
to
give
the
kind
of
testimony
in
this
matter
that
will
be
required.
Accordingly,
on
the
basis
of
the
evidence
before
the
Court,
the
motion
for
an
adjournment
is
denied.
The
appeal
from
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada
is
dismissed.
With
respect
to
the
matter
of
costs,
the
parties
will
bear
their
own
costs
in
this
matter.
Motion
denied;
appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content