Margeson T.C.J.:
This matter was set down for trial some time ago, for January 8, 1998, in Vancouver, B.C. By an Order of the Chief Judge dated December 11, 1997, an adjournment was granted. It was fixed peremptorily to be heard by this Court at this place at 9:30 a.m. on this date.
The Court convened at 9:30 a.m. with the intention of hearing the matter. Counsel for the Respondent was present. The Appellant did not appear, no one appeared on his behalf nor did anyone on his behalf advise the Court that he would not be here or give any explanation as to why he or some representative was not here.
The Appellant, by letter to the Tax Court of Canada, received on May 14, 1998, did make an application for a further adjournment of the matter, indicating that he was going to be away on business. This was the same reason for the first adjournment. He was advised on May 25, 1998 that his request for an adjournment was denied. The Appellant had no reason to believe that the matter was going to be adjourned and it was certainly his responsibility to keep in touch with the Court to determine what the outcome of his application was.
There is a notation in the file that the Notice of Hearing was sent to the Appellant at the address in the file, John Loos, P.O. Box 3646, Vancouver, British Columbia, V6B 3Y8. This was on October 30, 1997.
With respect to the last application for an adjournment, the Court notes that a notice was sent to the Appellant indicating that the matter would be proceeding on this date. It was sent to him by Priority Post, which was a form of registered mail.
There is no indication in the file that he did not receive it. In any event, if he did not receive it, it was sent to the address which the Court had for him. They made every attempt to contact him. It was his duty to keep in touch with the Court and find out what the state of his application for an adjournment was. He did not do so.
It is obvious from the file that he does not intend to pursue this matter. He does not intend to pursue it with any degree of rapidity, which the Court requires. The Court is not in a position to grant adjournments and put matters over just because somebody says that he is going to be out of the country on business. It is his duty to follow the matter up.
He has been given every opportunity. Obviously, he does not intend to pursue the matter and this is certainly a case where the Respondent is fully justified in making an application to dismiss the matter for want of prosecution.
The Court orders that the matter be dismissed for want of prosecution.
Application allowed.
Email this Content