Fu v. R., [1998] 3 CTC 2616

Tanasychuk T.O., T.C.C.:

This taxation came on for hearing on April 15, 1998, by means of a telephone conference call. It follows a Judgment of the Honourable Judge Garon dated October 20, 1997, in which he dismissed the appeal made under the Income Tax Act with respect to the 1992 taxation year, with costs.

The Appellant did not participate in the telephone conference call. The Notice of Appointment for Taxation of Costs and Bill of Costs were served on the Appellant at her last known address in Canada. The Appellant had not provided the Tax Court of Canada with a telephone number in Canada. Ms. Eleanor Thorn represented the Respondent.

At the outset, Ms. Thorn informed me that she had recently received a FAX communication from the Appellant, who currently resided in Beijing, China. Ms. Thorn provided me with the Appellant’s telephone number in Beijing. While Ms. Thorn had recently been contacted by the Appellant, the Tax Court of Canada received no communication from the Appellant.

In accordance with section 13 of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure) (hereinafter the “Rules”) the taxation of costs was adjourned for thirty minutes. Upon resuming, the taxation of costs proceeded, without the participation of the Appellant. No efforts were made to telephone the Appellant in Beijing, China.

The Bill of Costs as submitted by the Respondent is as follows:

Ms. Thorn made a further request for an additional amount of $200.00 on account of the taxation of costs.

The items which appear under the heading of “services of counsel” pursuant to Schedule II, Tariff B, subsection 1(1) are in order and are allowed in total for $500.00.

I will also allow the further amount of $200.00 on account of this taxation of costs.

The Bill of Costs of the Respondent is taxed and the amount of $700.00 is allowed. A certificate in that amount will be issued.

Order accordingly.