Date: 20020716
Docket:
2001-1711-IT-G
BETWEEN:
THOMSON MOTORS CO.
LTD.,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE
QUEEN,
Respondent.
Reasonsfor Order
Little, J.
FACTS
[1]
Notices of reassessment were issued by the Minister of National
Revenue (the "Minister") on December 13, 1999 for the
Appellant's 1995 and 1996 taxation years.
[2]
The Appellant filed Notices of Objection to the said
reassessments and after the reassessments were confirmed the
Appellant filed Notices of Appeal to the Court.
[3]
By letter dated May 10, 2001, Mr. R.G. Wilson, the sole director
and officer of the Appellant wrote to the Court to request that
he be allowed to represent the Appellant in respect of the
appeals for the 1995 and 1996 taxation years.
[4]
Subsection 30(2) of the Rules of the Tax Court of Canada
("rule 30(2)") reads as follows:
A corporation shall
be represented by counsel in all proceedings in the Court, unless
the Court, in special circumstances, grants leave to the
corporation to be represented by an officer of the
corporation.
[5]
By letter dated May 6, 2001, counsel for the Respondent suggested
that this is not a situation where the Court should grant leave
to permit Mr. Wilson to represent the Appellant in its
appeal.
[6]
In her submission counsel for the Respondent outlined the
criteria that have been considered by Courts before leave can be
granted under rule 30(2). Counsel for the Respondent outlined the
following criteria:
1.
Whether the corporation can pay for a lawyer;
2.
Whether the proposed representative would likely be a
witness;
3.
Whether the issue(s) were complex legal issues;
4.
Whether the action can proceed in an expeditious
manner;
5.
Whether the Attorney General has elected to move the appeal from
the Informal Procedure to the General Procedure;
6.
Whether the officer is also the director and sole shareholder of
the corporation.
[7]
I believe that counsel for the Respondent is correct in the
summary that she prepared outlining the criteria that should be
considered before leave can be granted under rule
30(2).
[8]
During the hearing of the application, Mr. Wilson stated that the
Appellant does not have the funds required to retain a lawyer to
conduct the appeal. When asked if the Appellant was able to sell
assets in order to obtain funds to retain a lawyer Mr. Wilson
said that the assets of the company could not be sold to generate
the money required to obtain legal counsel.
[9]
Mr. Wilson said that he understands the legal issues involved and
that he will endeavour to have the Appellant's appeal proceed
in an expeditious manner. While discussing the Appellant's
appeal with Mr. Wilson, I concluded that he appears to be capable
to represent the Appellant.
DECISION
[10]
In my opinion the fact that a company does not have the financial
resources to retain a lawyer to conduct its appeal is a decisive
factor in granting a motion under rule 30(2). Support for this
conclusion may be found in Mavito Inc. c. R. [2001] 2
C.T.C. 2048 and Sharpe's Tropical Shell Co. v. Canada
(1995), 100 F.T.R. 59 (Fed. T.D.) and RFA Natural Gas
Inc. v. R. [2000] G.S.T.C. 40. In Sharpe's Tropical
Shell Co. v. Canada, Prothonotary Hargrave said at
page 61:
...Where there is a
director who seems reasonably capable of representing a company,
an impecunious company ought not to be denied its day in
court.
[11]
Under the circumstances as outlined above, I am satisfied that
this is a situation where the Court should exercise its
discretion and permit Mr. Wilson to represent the Appellant in
its appeal.
[12]
The application is granted
Signed at Vancouver, British Columbia, this
16th day of July 2002.
"L.M. Little"
J.T.C.C.
COURT FILE
NO.:
2001-1711(IT)G
STYLE OF
CAUSE:
Thomson Motors Co. Ltd. and
Her Majesty the Queen
PLACE OF
HEARING:
Vancouver, British Columbia
DATE OF
HEARING:
July 12, 2002
REASONS FOR ORDER
BY:
The Honourable Judge L.M. Little
DATE OF
ORDER:
July 16, 2002
APPEARANCES:
Agent for the
Appellant:
Robert G. Wilson
Counsel for the
Respondent:
Linda Bell
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For the
Appellant:
Name:
Firm:
For the
Respondent:
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Canada
2001-1711(IT)G
BETWEEN:
THOMSON MOTORS CO. LTD.,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
Motion heard on July 12, 2002, at Vancouver,
British Columbia, by
the Honourable Judge L.M. Little
Appearances
Agent for the
Appellant:
Robert G. Wilson
Counsel for the Respondent: Linda
Bell
ORDER
Upon application, on behalf of the Appellant, for an Order
granting leave to the Appellant to be represented by R.G. Wilson,
an officer of the Appellant, pursuant to subsection 30(2) of the
Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure);
Upon having heard the comments of Mr. Wilson
on behalf of the Appellant and the comments of counsel for the
Respondent;
IT IS ORDERED that R.G. Wilson will be
allowed to represent the Appellant in this appeal.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Appellant
file a Resolution with the Court in which the Appellant appoints
R.G. Wilson as its agent for the purposes of conducting the
appeal.
Signed at Vancouver,
British Columbia, this 16th day of July 2002.
J.T.C.C.
Email this Content