Bowie
7.C.J.:
These
appeals
from
assessments
for
income
tax
for
the
years
1993,
1994
and
1995
were
begun
by
a
Notice
of
Appeal
filed
on
March
23,
1998
by
the
Applicant’s
agent,
Barry
Ward,
CA.
The
Applicant
elected
the
informal
procedure.
A
Reply
to
the
Notice
of
Appeal
was
served
and
filed
on
or
about
May
21,
1998.
Notice
of
Hearing
was
mailed
to
both
parties
on
November
3,
1998.
On
December
8,
1998,
a
letter
was
sent
on
Mr.
Ward’s
letterhead
to
the
Registrar
of
the
Court.
It
reads
as
follows:
This
is
to
advise
that
the
above
taxpayer
wishes
to
withdraw
his
above
appeal
scheduled
to
be
heard
on
January
12,
1999
at
the
Tax
Court
in
Vancouver,
B.C.
It
was
signed
“K.
Mari
per
B.
Ward”,
over
the
typed
signature
“Barry
Ward,
CA”.
A
copy
was
sent
to
the
Applicant.
On
December
21,
1998,
the
Registry
of
the
Court
acknowledged
the
receipt
of
this
letter,
advising
that
it
was
filed
on
December
16,
1998,
and
that
the
file
was
then
closed.
On
December
22,
1998,
Mr.
Ward
wrote
to
the
Registrar
as
follows:
On
December
8,
1998
I
wrote
to
you
regarding
the
above
noted
taxpayer
stating
he
wished
to
withdraw
his
appeal.
There
was
some
confusion
between
the
taxpayer
and
ourselves
as
he
has
now
advised
us
he
wishes
to
continue
this
appeal
and
represent
himself
when
it’s
heard.
Please
disregard
our
letter
of
December
8,
1998
and
keep
the
appeal
open.
As
I
am
with
this
letter
resigning
as
his
authorized
representative,
he
may
be
contacted
at
11470
Warsley
Street,
Maple
Ridge,
B.C.
V2X
1T1,
telephone
604-
465-4438.
The
letter
is
signed
by
Mr.
Ward,
over
his
typed
signature.
A
copy
was
sent
to
the
Applicant.
Counsel
for
the
Respondent,
upon
being
made
aware
of
this
letter,
wrote
to
the
Registrar
to
record
his
opposition
to
the
purported
withdrawal
of
the
Notice
of
Discontinuance.
The
Applicant,
represented
by
his
agent,
appeared
before
me
on
January
12,
1999,
seeking
an
Order
to
reinstate
his
appeals.
The
Applicant
and
Mrs.
Ward
gave
evidence
which
established
these
facts.
Mr.
Ward
was
authorized
to,
and
did,
file
the
Notice
of
Appeal
on
the
Appellant’s
behalf.
In
the
latter
part
of
1988,
a
serious
health
problem
prevented
him
from
attending
to
his
practice
for
several
weeks.
During
this
time
his
daughter,
who
works
for
him
as
a
clerk
and
bookkeeper,
and
his
wife,
who
works
part-time
in
his
office,
attended
to
his
practice.
Upon
re-
ceiving
the
Notice
of
Hearing
in
these
appeals,
Mrs.
Ward
telephoned
the
Applicant
and
arranged
to
meet
with
him.
During
that
meeting
she
somehow
gained
the
impression
that
the
Applicant
did
not
wish
to
pursue
his
appeals,
and
she
therefore
caused
the
letter
of
December
8
to
be
sent
to
the
Court.
When
he
received
a
copy
of
this
letter,
the
Applicant
telephoned
the
agent’s
office,
demanding
an
explanation.
I
believe
his
testimony,
which
was
to
the
effect
that
he
did
not
wish
to
abandon
his
appeals,
and
that
the
letter
of
December
8
was
sent
without
his
instructions.
I
also
believe
the
evidence
of
Mrs.
Ward,
which
was
that
she
believed,
after
meeting
with
the
Applicant,
that
he
did
not
wish
to
pursue
his
appeals.
The
agent
for
the
Applicant
takes
the
position
that
the
letter
of
December
8
was
the
result
of
a
misunderstanding
between
the
Applicant
and
Mrs.
Ward,
that
it
was
withdrawn
as
soon
as
the
misunderstanding
was
discovered,
and
that
the
Applicant
should
not
be
prejudiced
by
this
mistake.
Counsel
for
the
Respondent
argued
that
the
letter
of
December
8
was
an
effective
Notice
of
Withdrawal,
and
that
by
the
operation
of
section
16.2!
of
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada
Act
(the
Act),
the
appeals
are
deemed
to
have
been
dismissed
on
December
16,
1998,
when
it
was
filed.
He
relies
on
two
judgments
of
this
Court:
Laskaris
v.
Minister
of
National
Revenue^
and
Bogie
v.
/?.
.
The
Laskaris
case
was
decided
before
section
16.2
was
enacted.
Laskaris,
by
his
agent,
filed
a
Notice
of
Appeal
in
the
Court
more
than
180
days
after
his
Notice
of
Objection
was
delivered
to
the
Minister,
but
before
the
Minister
had
dealt
with
the
objection.
A
representative
of
the
Minister,
mistakenly,
advised
the
agent
of
the
Applicant
to
withdraw
the
appeal,
on
the
understanding
that
he
could
refile
it
after
the
objection
had
been
dealt
with.
He
did
so,
and,
as
was
then
the
practice
of
the
Court,
the
Notice
of
Discontinuance
was
placed
before
the
Chief
Judge,
who
made
an
Order
dismissing
the
appeal.
Sarchuk
J.
held
that,
even
though
the
Respondent
had,
without
malice,
induced
the
Applicant
to
file
the
Notice
of
Discontinuance,
the
Court
had
no
power
to
relieve
against
the
dismissal,
based
on
the
with-
drawal,
of
what
had
been
a
valid
appeal.
The
Court’s
power
was
spent,
and
the
Applicant
had
lost
the
right
to
appeal
the
assessment.
In
Bogie,
the
Appellant
filed
a
Notice
of
Appeal
from
an
assessment
for
income
tax,
asserting
that
a
property
sold
by
him
had
been
his
principal
residence.
He
was
then
advised,
erroneously,
by
his
accountant
that
he
had
in
the
past
claimed
capital
cost
allowance
on
the
property,
and
that
it
therefore
could
not
be
a
principal
residence.
The
Appellant
discontinued
his
appeal,
only
to
be
advised
by
the
accountant
that
his
earlier
advice
had
been
a
mistake.
On
a
motion
to
have
the
Notice
of
Discontinuance
set
aside,
Brulé
J.
concluded
that
he
had
no
such
jurisdiction,
as
section
16.2
operated
to
deem
the
appeal
to
be
dismissed
as
of
the
day
of
filing
the
Notice
of
Discontinuance.
In
Bogie,
Brulé
J.
referred
to
the
Appellant’s
“considered
decision
to
terminate
the
appeal”.
In
the
present
case
the
Applicant
made
no
such
decision,
considered
or
otherwise.
The
appeal
was
terminated
by
the
action
of
Mrs.
Ward,
which
she
was
not,
as
she
thought,
instructed
to
take.
I
have,
somewhat
reluctantly,
concluded
that
this
factual
difference
does
not
permit
the
Applicant
to
avoid
the
effect
of
the
December
8,
1998
letter.
Section
17.1
of
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada
Act
permits
an
Appellant
who
elects
the
informal
procedure
to
be
represented
by
counsel,
or
by
an
agent.
17.1(1)
A
party
to
a
proceeding
in
respect
of
which
this
section
applies
may
appear
in
person
or
be
represented
by
counsel,
but
where
the
party
wished
to
be
represented
by
counsel,
only
a
person
who
is
referred
to
in
subsection
(2)
shall
represent
the
party.
(2)
Every
person
who
may
practise
as
a
barrister,
advocate,
attorney
or
solicitor
in
any
of
the
provinces
may
so
practise
in
the
Court
and
is
an
officer
of
the
Court.
There
is
no
doubt
that
a
litigant
is
bound
by
the
actions
of
counsel
taken
in
the
conduct
of
the
litigation.
There
is
nothing
in
section
17.1,
or
elsewhere
in
the
Act,
to
suggest
that
a
non-legal
agent
has
any
lesser,
or
different,
authority
than
a
lawyer
has
in
representing
a
litigant
before
this
Court.
Nor
is
there
any
principled
reason
why
the
extent
of
an
agent’s
implied
authority
should
be
different,
at
least
in
the
context
of
a
professional
person
who
acts
for
a
fee.
I
was
referred
to
no
authority
that
would
support
such
a
distinction.
Nor
was
it
suggested
by
Mr.
Ward
that
his
wife
lacked
the
authority
to
act
for
him
in
his
absence.
Indeed,
it
is
clear
that
she
did
have
his
authority
to
act.
The
words
of
section
16.2
are
clear,
and
I
must
give
effect
to
them.
I
should
add
that
my
conclusion
is
based
on
the
words
of
section
16.2
of
the
Act,
and
the
implied
authority
which
a
professional
agent
who
is
paid
to
conduct
an
appeal
in
the
Court
has
to
bind
his
client.
The
result
might
well
be
different
if
the
agent
were
simply
a
friend,
professing
no
particular
skill,
and
assisting
the
Applicant
for
no
consideration.
I
have
reached
my
decision
in
this
matter
reluctantly,
as
I
would
relieve
the
Applicant
from
the
serious
consequences
of
his
agent’s
mistake
if
it
were
open
to
me
to
do
so.
The
prospect
of
an
action
for
damages
must
be
of
little
comfort
to
him,
given
the
cost
and
the
uncertainty
of
such
litigation.
This
case
should
serve
as
a
reminder
to
those
who
elect
to
act
as
professional
agents
before
this
Court
that
by
doing
so
they
accept
the
responsibility
to
exercise
an
adequate
degree
of
care
to
safeguard
the
interests
of
their
clients.
The
application
to
set
aside
the
deemed
dismissal
and
to
reinstate
the
appeals
is
denied.
Application
dismissed.