The
Assistant
Chairman:—These
two
cases
were
called
for
hearing
at
9:30
am
on
July
6,
1982,
at
Toronto,
Ontario.
Because
of
the
judgments
which
were
given
that
day,
it
is
considered
best
to
write
short
reasons.
The
Notices
of
Appeal
were
filed
in
the
early
summer
of
1980,
and
the
replies
thereto
in
the
early
fall
of
the
same
year.
An
application
to
set
a
special
date
for
the
hearing
of
these
appeals
was
made
by
counsel
for
the
Minister
and
the
then
counsel
for
the
appellants.
On
October
14,
1981,
on
the
consent
of
both
counsel,
the
cases
were
adjourned
sine
die.
In
February
1982,
a
new
date
was
set
and
that
date
was
April
13,
1982,
at
2
pm.
On
February
23,
1982,
this
Board
was
advised
by
the
then
counsel
for
the
two
appellants
that
he
was
no
longer
acting
for
them.
The
letter
stated
that
the
writer
believed
the
Board
would
hear
from
the
Department
of
Justice
or
the
appellants’
new
counsel.
There
were
telephone
conversations
between
(as
it
turned
out)
the
appellants’
new
agent
and
the
registrar
of
this
Board
and,
at
that
time,
the
agent
mentioned
the
possiblity
of
an
adjournment
being
requested.
He
was
informed
that
the
Board
would
not
consider
a
request
for
an
adjournment
unless
it
was
in
writing
and
the
Crown
had
an
opportunity
to
state
its
position.
There
were
two
telephone
conversations
(March
4,
1982
and
March
31,
1982)
between
officials
of
the
Board
and
a
person
called
Mr
Elliott
or
Mr
H
Elliott,
who
was
acting
for
the
appellants.
Prior
to
the
date
of
hearing
(April
13),
the
Board
had
received
no
correspondence
from
Mr
Elliott.
The
appeals
were
called
at
the
time
and
place
set
forth
in
the
Notices
of
Hearing
—
April
13,
1982
at
Toronto.
Counsel
for
the
Minister
was
present
but
neither
the
individual
appellant
nor
anyone
representing
the
appellants
was
present.
Some
information
was
gathered
from
counsel
for
the
Minister
as
to
the
identity
of
the
appellants’
agent.
After
fifteen
or
so
minutes,
the
Board
was
about
to
adjourn
in
order
to
give
the
appellants
and/or
their
representatives
more
time
to
attend,
when
two
gentlemen
appeared
in
the
courtroom.
In
response
to
my
query
as
to
whether
or
not
they
were
involved
in
the
two
appeals
(and
I
used
the
names
of
the
appellants),
one
gentlemen
said
yes.
I
asked
who
he
was
and
I
was
informed
“Mr
Elliott”.
Following
a
short
adjournment,
the
cases
were
called
and
Mr
Elliott
was
reprimanded
for
not
having
been
at
the
hearing
on
time.
He
later
asked
for
an
adjournment,
his
basic
reason
being
that
he
could
not
get
the
records
from
the
appellants’
former
counsel.
Since
that
matter
had
been
raised
by
him
with
the
registrar
of
the
Board,
he
was
pointedly
asked
by
the
Board
why
he
had
not
written
to
it
and
the
Department
of
Justice
requesting
an
adjournment.
The
Board
was
then
presented
with
a
letter
by
Mr
Elliott
dated
April
6,
1982,
requesting
an
adjournment
from
April
13,
1982.
It
was
not
only
the
first
written
correspondence
the
Boad
had
received
on
these
matters
from
Mr
Elliott,
but
to
date
the
only
written
correspondence.
The
Board
granted
the
adjournment
although
counsel
for
the
Minister
objected
strongly,
reciting
as
reasons
for
objecting
—
the
waste
of
time
in
preparing
for
the
case,
similar
effort
would
have
to
be
expended
again
in
two
or
three
months,
and
the
costs
already
incurred.
While
the
Board
did
grant
the
adjournment,
at
that
time
it
set
the
hearing
peremptorily
for
July
6,
1982,
at
9:30
am
in
the
same
courtroom.
Mr
Elliott
stated
he
agreed
to
that
date,
as
did
his
individual
client,
and
as
did
counsel
for
the
Crown.
Mr
Elliott
stated
that
the
time
granted
was
sufficient
for
him
to
prepare.
He
was
warned
by
the
Board
that
there
would
be
no
further
adjournment
unless
the
reason
offered
in
effect
left
the
Board
no
choice.
The
Board
severely
admonished
Mr
Elliott
for
not
writing
to
it
about
a
possible
adjournment
as
soon
as
he
realized
that
it
was
possible
he
would
be
asking
for
one.
The
Board
also
informed
him
that
if
the
law
had
not
prohibited
the
awarding
of
costs,
costs
would
have
been
awarded
to
the
Crown
and
payable
by
Mr
Elliott
personally
rather
than
by
the
appellants.
A
few
days
after
granting
the
adjournment,
new
Notices
of
Hearing
were
sent
to
the
Crown
and
Mr
Elliott
returnable
July
6,
1982,
at
the
same
courtroom.
Court
was
called
at
that
time
and
only
counsel
for
the
Crown
was
present.
Mr
Elliott
was
not.
Counsel
for
the
Crown
advised
the
Board
that
he
had
received
no
correspondence
from
Mr
Elliott.
The
Board
advised
that
there
would
be
an
adjournment
for
thirty
minutes
in
case
Mr
Elliott
was
late
again
and,
in
addition,
to
give
the
registrar
an
opportunity
to
telephone
Mr
Elliott
and
the
individual
appellant.
The
Board
resumed
as
scheduled.
The
registrar
informed
the
Board
in
open
court
that
he
had
telephoned
Mr
Elliott’s
office
and
was
told
that
he
was
not
in,
nor
was
there
anyone
there
who
could
give
him
information
about
the
two
appeals.
A
telephone
call
to
the
individual’s
number
produced
no
trace
of
him.
Mr
MacGregor,
a
senior
officer
of
the
Department
of
Justice,
informed
the
Board
that
he
had
just
received
a
telephone
call
from
a
secretary
in
a
stated
law
firm.
She
said
that
the
firm
was
acting
for
the
appellants
and
wanted
an
adjournment.
At
Mr
MacGregor’s
request,
the
call
was
put
through
to
a
lawyer.
While
Mr
MacGregor
told
him
that
he
would
advise
the
Board
of
the
adjournment
request,
he
also
stated
that
he
would
not
act
for
that
firm
and
suggested
the
lawyer
send
someone
immediately
to
make
the
adjournment
request.
He
was
advised
that
it
was
impossible.
While
the
Board
was
being
so
advised,
the
registrar,
by
telephone,
was
informed
by
Mr
Elliott
that
he
was
no
longer
acting
in
these
matters
and
that
he
had
given
all
information
he
had
to
a
lawyer
about
a
month
ago.
In
conclusion,
Mr
Malette,
who
acted
for
the
Crown,
moved
for
dismissal
of
the
appeals.
In
light
of
the
recounted
facts,
the
Board
had
no
alternative
but
to
accede
to
the
request
and
therefore
dismissed
the
appeals.
When
a
person
who
is
not
a
lawyer
acts
on
behalf
of
another
person
before
this
Board
(as
they
are
entitled
to
do),
that
person
should
realize
that
they
have
responsibilities
and,
while
courtesy
to
all
should
always
be
present,
they
have
a
duty
towards
the
Board.
Appeals
dismissed.
Email this Content