Docket: 2004-367(IT)G
BETWEEN:
DIETER HARDTKE,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
____________________________________________________________________
Before: The Honourable
Justice G. A. Sheridan
|
Counsel
for the Appellant:
|
Jason
Dutrizac
|
|
Counsel for the
Respondent:
|
Daniel Bourgeois
|
____________________________________________________________________
ORDER
Upon the adjournment sine die of the hearing of
the Appellant’s motion of March 30, 2009 to permit the Appellant to submit to
the Court for its consideration a draft of proposed questions in respect of the
document produced by the Respondent and referred to in submissions as the
“Discussion Paper” and attached as Tab “B” to the Motion Record of the
Appellant;
And upon the Appellant having submitted his proposed
questions;
And upon the Respondent having provided, at the
Court’s request, its position in respect of the proposed questions;
And having read the materials submitted by the
parties, the Appellant’s motion for an order for directions with respect to the
continuation of the Examination for Discovery of the Respondent’s nominee
and/or limiting its scope is dismissed, with costs to follow the cause, in
accordance with the attached Reasons for Order.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada,
this 4th day of May, 2009.
“G. A. Sheridan”
Citation: 2009TCC240
Date: 20090504
Docket: 2004-367(IT)G
BETWEEN:
DIETER HARDTKE,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR ORDER
Sheridan, J.
[1] The Appellant brings a motion for an order for directions with respect
to the continuation of the Examination for Discovery of the Respondent’s nominee
and/or limiting its scope. I adjourned the hearing of the motion on March 30,
2009 to permit counsel for the Appellant to submit to the Court the questions
that he proposed to ask before making my decision.
[2] Having now had
the opportunity to consider the submissions of counsel at the hearing of the
motion on March 30, 2009 in light of the proposed questions and the Respondent’s
argument opposing them, I am not persuaded that there is any basis for the
proposed questions to be asked.
[3] I agree with the
submissions of counsel for the Respondent that questions 1-5 have to do with
the conduct of the Canada Revenue Agency officials and as such, are not
relevant to the issue in the appeal, namely, the correctness of the assessment.
This issue has already been decided by Lamarre J. by her Order of April 21,
2005.
[4] As for the
remaining questions, the March 30, 2009 hearing was adjourned on the footing that
the Appellant was not seeking to reopen discoveries in general; and that any
further questions would be focused on the Respondent’s document referred to at
the hearing as the “Discussion Paper” and attached as Tab “B” to the Motion
Record of the Appellant. Notwithstanding that limitation, the queries in
proposed questions 6-22 all have to do with the Minister’s basis for the
assessment itself. I agree with the Respondent that such questions are beyond
the parameters of the Appellant’s motion. Having chosen to terminate its
Examination for Discovery of the Respondent’s agent, the Appellant cannot now
compel answers to questions not within the scope of his motion.
[5] The Appellant’s
motion is dismissed, with costs to follow the cause.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 4th day of May, 2009.
“G. A. Sheridan”
CITATION: 2009TCC240
COURT FILE NO.: 2004-367(IT)G
STYLE OF CAUSE: DIETER HARDTKE AND
HER
MAJESTY THE QUEEN
PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, Canada
DATE OF HEARING: March 30, 2009
REASONS FOR ORDER
BY: The Honourable Justice G. A. Sheridan
DATE OF ORDER: May 4, 2009
APPEARANCES:
|
Counsel for the
Appellant:
|
Jason Dutrizac
|
|
Counsel for the
Respondent:
|
Daniel Bourgeois
|
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For the Appellant:
Name: Jason Dutrizac
Firm: Gibsons
LLP
Ottawa, Canada
For the
Respondent: John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy
Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa,
Canada
Email this Content