Stifel v. The Queen, docket 94-5-IT-G

Date: 19980529

Docket: 94-5-IT-G

BETWEEN:

JOHN STIFEL,

Appellant,

and

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,

Respondent.

Reasons for Order

Hamlyn, J.T.C.C.

[1] This is a motion made by the Appellant pursuant to Rule 69 of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure) (the "Rules") dated March 10, 1998, for an Order granting the Appellant an extension of time to file an appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal. The Appellant is seeking to appeal the judgment of the Tax Court of Canada dated July 23, 1996, dismissing his appeals for failure to appear.

[2] Section 27 of the Federal Court Act gives the Federal Court of Appeal jurisdiction to hear appeals of judgments of the Tax Court of Canada. It requires that an appeal be brought by filing a Notice of Appeal within 30 days from the date of the Tax Court of Canada judgment.

[3] Section 27 of the Federal Court Act gives the Tax Court of Canada the jurisdiction to extend time after the expiration of the normal appeal period.

[4] In order to qualify for an extension of time there are tests that flow from the jurisprudence. They include that the Appellant must show a bona fide intention to appeal when he has the right to appeal, that his failure to appeal within the time must be as a result of special circumstance which serves to excuse or justify that failure and that it must be at least arguable that the judgment appealed from is wrong.

[5] The appeal in the Tax Court of Canada was dismissed for failure to appear (July 23, 1996). In his Notice of Motion, the Appellant does not explain why he failed to appear. He does not indicate that he had a bona fide intention to appeal when there was a right to appeal. There is no explanation given for the 18 month delay in bringing his Notice of Motion other than the Appellant states he has been in poor health for the last seven years (since August 1991).

[6] In order for the Appellant to receive an extension of time, he must establish that he has an arguable case in the Federal Court of Appeal.

[7] His allegations that the judgment dated July 23, 1996, was “false and without merit” and was an act of “extortion, fraud, treason and conspiracy" has not been established.

[8] The Appellant's motion is dismissed with costs.

Signed at Ottawa, Ontario, this 29th day of May 1998.

"D. Hamlyn"

J.T.C.C.