Dockets: 2024-291(GST)I
2024-292(GST)I
BETWEEN:
JULES CHARTIER, SUZANNE CHARTIER,
Appellants,
and
HIS MAJESTY THE KING,
Respondent.
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
Appeal heard and decision delivered orally from the bench on June 26, 2024, at Winnipeg, Manitoba
Before: The Honourable Justice Patrick Boyle
Appearances:
For the appellants:
|
The appellants themselves
|
Counsel for the respondent:
|
No one appeared
|
JUDGMENT
For the attached reasons for judgment, delivered orally from the bench, the appeals from the assessments made under the Excise Tax Act, including that dated November 7, 2023, are allowed with costs, and the reassessments are vacated.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 30th day of July 2024.
“Patrick Boyle”
Translation certified true
on this 5th day of November 2024
Margarita Gorbounova
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Appeal heard and decision delivered orally from the bench
on June 26, 2024, at Winnipeg, Manitoba
Boyle J.
[1] I will render my decision now. However, I must tell you that the respondent is entitled to make a motion to schedule another hearing to hear this. But because the respondent did not respond to the Court or to you and did not appear this morning, I will allow your appeals.
[2] The appellants, Jules Chartier and Suzanne Chartier, filed their notices of appeal under the Court’s informal procedure with respect to very modest Goods and Services Tax (“GST”) assessments for 2010 and 2021.
[3] They are representing themselves. Mr. Chartier appeared on the morning of June 26, 2024, ready to proceed with copies of all relevant documents and so on in hand.
[4] No one appeared for the respondent.
[5] The Court sent all the parties a copy of a notice stating that the hearing was scheduled for June 26, 2024, in Winnipeg, Manitoba.
[6] The respondent did not reply to the notices of appeal, and the deadline to do so has passed.
[7] Neither the appellants nor the Court was contacted by counsel for the respondent since the notices of appeal had been filed.
[8] We adjourned the hearing for 40 minutes, and when we resumed, there was still no appearance for or update from the respondent.
[9] I took into consideration subsections 18.16(1) and (4) of the Tax Court of Canada Act and section 18.21 of that Act, even though that provision concerns only appellants who do not appear.
[10] I also considered Rule 140 of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure), dealing with the respondent’s failure to appear, and Rule 63, dealing with failure to file a reply in general-procedure proceedings.
[11] Finally, I also considered and relied on the 2002 decision of former Chief Justice Bowman in Poulton, more specifically, paragraphs 11 to 18 of that decision.
[12] I am quite satisfied that, in these particular circumstances, these informal appeals should be allowed and the reassessments vacated. The appellants are also entitled to their costs.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 30th day of July 2024.
“Patrick Boyle”
Translation certified true
on this 5th day of November 2024
Margarita Gorbounova
Email this Content