Docket: 2010-3257(IT)I
BETWEEN:
DANIEL RHEAUME,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
____________________________________________________________________
Appeals
called for hearing on February 16, 2012, at Toronto,
Ontario.
Before: The Honourable
Justice Johanne D'Auray
Appearances:
|
For the Appellant:
|
The
Appellant himself
|
|
Counsel for the Respondent:
|
Samantha Hurst
|
____________________________________________________________________
ORDER
UPON motion made by the appellant to have the
appeals adjourned;
And upon motion made by the respondent
pursuant to section 152 of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure)
for costs;
And upon hearing the allegation of the
parties;
The adjournment is granted and it is ordered
that the hearing in this matter, which was scheduled for February 16th,
2012 in Toronto, Ontario, be rescheduled before this Court at the Tax Court of
Canada, Federal Judicial Centre, 180 Queen Street West, 6th Floor,
Toronto, Ontario, commencing at 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, April 3, 2012, for a
duration of one day.
The
order rendered by Justice Jorré dated August 17, 2011 is amended to read:
The
appellant shall provide to the respondent copies of any documents he intends to
rely upon during the hearing no later than 10 days prior to the hearing.
The motion for costs directing the
appellant’s agent to reimburse his client for any costs ordered by this Court
shall be addressed by presiding Judge.
It is also ordered that the correspondence
from this Court be sent to both the appellant and Mr. David Kisondath
addresses.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 27th
day of February 2012.
“Johanne D’Auray”
Citation: 2012 TCC 67
Date: 20120227
Docket: 2010-3257(IT)I
BETWEEN:
DANIEL RHEAUME,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR ORDER
D'Auray J.
[1]
This appeal has a long
history of delay occasioned by the appellant and his agent.
[2]
The appeals of the
appellant, Mr. Rheaume, were originally scheduled to be heard on May 5,
2011, but they were adjourned by the Court due to a scheduling conflict.
[3]
The next hearing date
was canvassed with the parties who agreed for it to be set down on August 12,
2011.
[4]
On July 29, 2011, the
appellant’s agent requested an adjournment because he claimed that he would be
out of the country. The respondent opposed the adjournment.
[5]
This Court refused the
adjournment and on August 12, 2011, the day of the hearing, the appellant’s
agent appeared without the appellant and requested an adjournment so that the
documents could be obtained and provided to the respondent.
[6]
The respondent
consented to the adjournment on condition that costs be paid and the documents
be provided as soon as possible, but not later than 30 days prior to the next
hearing.
[7]
On August 17, 2011, Justice
Jorré issued an order:
ORDER
Upon motion made by the appellant to have the appeal
adjourned;
And upon hearing submissions from the parties;
For the reasons given from the bench, the adjournment
is granted on the following terms:
1.
The appellant shall pay costs of $600 to the
respondent.
2.
Those costs are to be paid on or before 12
September 2011.
3.
If those costs are not paid by 12 September
2011, the appeal shall, upon application by the respondent, be dismissed.
4.
The appellant shall provide the respondent
copies of any documentation the appellant relies upon as soon as possible and,
in any event, no later than 30 days prior to the hearing.
5.
If the appellant fails to provide any documents
he relies on to the respondent no later than 30 days prior to the hearing, the
appellant may not rely on the documents unless he obtains leave from the Court
prior to the hearing.
[8]
The costs of $600 have
been paid but documents with probation value were not remitted to the respondent.
[9]
On October 6, 2012, the
Court set these appeals down for hearing on February 16, 2012.
[10]
On February 14, 2012,
there was a request for another adjournment. The appellant’s agent,
Mr. Kisondath advised that he was sick and could not come to the Court.
[11]
On February 15, 2012, a
letter was sent by the Court’s Hearing Coordinator to the agent, Mr. David
Kisondath:
BY FAX AND MAIL
February 15, 2012
David Kisondath
Transglobal Management Inc
1425 Dundas Street East
Suite 202
Mississauga, Ontario L4X 2W4
Dear Sir:
RE: Daniel Rheaume
v. Her Majesty the Queen
2010-3257(IT)I
This will acknowledge receipt of your letter received February 14,
2012, requesting an adjournment of the hearing in the above-noted case set down
for February 16, 2012 in Toronto.
Further to my telephone conversation with you today, this will
confirm that your request for adjournment has been denied by Associate Chief
Justice Rossiter. The Associate Chief Justice directed that if you have a
medical certificate, you should present to the trial judge on February
16, 2012 at 9:30 a.m.
Associate Chief Justice Rossiter further directed that the Appellant
is required to appear in Court on February 16, 2012 at 9:30 a.m.
I have made efforts to reach the Appellant by telephone; however, his telephone
is turned off. I confirm your advice to me that you will contact the Appellant
at his mother’s residence to advise him that his attendance is required in
Court on February 16, 2012 at 9:30 a.m.
Yours truly,
Kimberly McIntee
Hearings Coordinator
c. Samantha Hurst (by fax)
Daniel Rheaume (by fax)
[12]
On February 16, 2012:
-
The appeal was called
for hearing at 9:30 a.m., no one was present for the appellant;
-
The Court adjourned for
half an hour;
-
During the adjournment,
the Commissioner gave a letter to the Court Registrar to be given to the Judge
hearing the appeal;
-
In the envelope, there
was a medical certificate signed by Dr. Sekely, dated February 15, 2012, attesting
that Mr. Kisondath was advised to stay home away from work for 3 days.
[13]
By the time the Court
resumed at 10:00, the appellant was present.
[14]
It was clear the
appellant was not aware of what was going on with respect to his appeals. He
did not have any documents. The appellant stated that he could not proceed
without his agent, Mr. Kisondath, since he was his business partner and he was
the one taking care of his tax affairs.
[15]
In light of this, I
decided to grant an adjournment to ensure that the appellant had time to
understand his case and to prepare accordingly.
[16]
It is to be noted that
the respondent notified the appellant that she would subpoena Mr. Kissondath
and that she will object at the hearing that Mr. Kissondath serves as a
witness and as his agent.
[17]
The Court also
explained to the appellant that he has chosen the informal procedure.
Accordingly, if the appellant were to be successful, the Court will be limited
to an amount of $12,000 per year not including any amount of interest.
[18]
The respondent also
asked that the Court gives directions under section 152 of the Tax Court of
Canada Rules (General Procedure). She was of the view that the appellant’s
agent should be responsible for the costs of these appeals.
[19]
This is an informal
procedure; section 152 applies to the general procedure and not the informal
procedure.
[20]
I am in the view that
with respect to costs, the costs will be better addressed by the presiding Judge.
[21]
Therefore, it is
ordered that the hearing of this matter, be rescheduled before this Court at
the Tax Court of Canada, Federal Judicial Centre, 180 Queen Street West, 6th
Floor, Toronto, Ontario, commencing at 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday,
April 3, 2012, for a duration of one day. It will be a bilingual
hearing.
[22]
It is also ordered that
an amendment will be made to the Order of Justice Jorré allowing the appellant
to provide to the respondent copies of
any documents he intends to rely upon during the hearing, no later than 10 days
prior to the hearing.
[23]
It is also ordered that
the correspondence from this Court be sent to both the appellant and
Mr. David Kisondath addresses.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 27th day of February 2012.
“Johanne D’Auray”
Email this Content